On April 25, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled on two cases concerning inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings:  Oil States Energy Svcs. v. Green’s Energy Grp., case no. 16-712, and SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, case no. 16-969.  In the first case, the Court ruled that IPRs can be a Constitutionally permissible way for the Patent Office to revoke already-issued patents, and in the second case, the Court ruled that the Patent Office is required to rule on either all or none of the patent claims challenged in a request for IPR.

Read more

On April 16, 2018, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, which presents the question whether a patent owner can recover damages suffered outside of the United States for infringing acts that occurred within the United States.

Read more

On April 5, 2018, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) published the public version of an earlier order by an ITC administrative law judge (ALJ) denying a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of the development of a domestic industry after the filing of the complaint.  In re Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1059, Order No. 52.  The ALJ ruled that, while the filing date “may be the bench mark,” there is “no rigid rule that the Commission must consider only at [sic] the investments in a domestic industry at the time of the filing of the complaint.”

Read more

On April 6, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming an examiner’s rejection of various patent claims in an inter partes reexamination. Knowles Elec. LLC v. Iancu, case no. 2016-1954.  The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) had intervened in the appeal to defend the examiner’s rejection.  In its opinion, the CAFC ruled that the PTO had standing to defend the examiner’s rejection even though the petitioner in the inter partes reexamination had abandoned the appeal.
 

On March 27, 2018, Judge Leonard P. Stark of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted a motion to dismiss, finding the subject matter of plaintiff’s patent claims to be unpatentable pursuant to the abstract-idea exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Triplay, Inc. v. WhatsApp, Inc., No. 13-1703 (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2018).  The Court based its ruling on, among other things, the lack of allegations relating to patentability in the complaint, explicitly declining to convert the motion from one for judgment on the pleadings into one for summary judgment.

Read more

On March 23, 2018, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had not sufficiently explained its reasoning in a final written decision invalidating certain patent claims, and reversed the invalidity ruling.  DSS Tech. Mgmt. v. Apple Inc., appeal nos. 2016-2523 and 2016-2524.  One member of the panel (Newman, J.) dissented, both on the merits, and on whether the panel should have ordered remand instead of reversing.

Read more

On March 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) ruled that a patent that discloses a technological species (“a fibre optics bundle”) provides written-description support for claims directed to a technological genus (“a light guide”).  Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., appeal no. 2017-1389.  The opinion presents the inverse of the situation in the Knowles case summarized in last week’s Litigation Weekly.

Read more

On March 13, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled that a party was collaterally estopped to challenge a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling on a claim-construction issue.  The estoppel arose from a previous IPR decision concerning a related patent.  Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., appeal no. 2017-1193.

Read more

On March 1, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled that a patent that disclosed a technological genus (solder pads) did not provide written-description support for claims to one species within that genus (solder pads configured for connection via a solder reflow process), even though the record showed that the species was known to those of skill in the art at the time of the invention.  Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., appeal no. 2016-2010.

Read more

On February 27, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment that claims of a patent directed to manufacturing driveline shaft assemblies are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to unpatentable subject matter.  American Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Drivelines LLC, case no. 15-CV-1168.  The decision is particularly interesting because it applies section 101 of the United States patent laws to mechanical inventions, outside of the computer context where recently such defenses have most often been raised.

Read more

​On February 22, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a trade-dress complaint with prejudice on the grounds that the complaint failed to identify the features of the claimed trade dress, failed to plead that any features are non-functional, and failed to plead a likelihood of confusion.  Eliya Inc. v. Steve Madden, Ltd., No. 2:15-CV-1272 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018).  In its already-amended complaint, plaintiff Eliya asserted product-configuration-type trade-dress rights under the Lanham Act in features of three of its shoe models, and claimed that defendant Steve Madden had infringed on those rights. Steve Madden moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim; a magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation to grant the motion; and the district judge adopted the recommendation, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.   The opinion illustrates the importance of making a detailed, fully articulated pleading when asserting product-configuration trade-dress rights.

Read more

On February 8, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming in part and vacating in part a finding of section 101 unpatentability. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (appeal no. 2017-1437).  The district court had granted a motion to dismiss on section 101 grounds, and while the CAFC affirmed the dismissal as to some claims, as to other claims it remanded the case to the district court, emphasizing the role of fact issues in section 101 analyses and thus complicating resolution of section 101 issues.

Read more

On February 9, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) entered an order transferring the appeal in a Walker Process antitrust action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (appeal no. 2016-2746).  Despite language in earlier decisions suggesting the contrary, and over both sides’ objections, the CAFC held that patent law is not a necessary element of a Walker Process claim, and that therefore the CAFC lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal.

Read more

On February 1, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, faced with a motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the patent owner’s bankruptcy filing, entered an order requiring further briefing and requiring the parties to report on the bankruptcy court’s view of whether the automatic-stay bankruptcy statute applies to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.  Twitter, Inc. v. Youtoo Techs., LLC, case no. IPR2017-00829, paper no. 27. 

Read more

On February 2, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that even if a gallery owner had copied an artist’s drawing of two dolphins, the copied elements were unprotectable “ideas that nature has already expressed for all.”  Folkens v. Wyland Worldwide, No. 16-15882 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2018). 

Read more

On February 2, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied a patent owner’s motion for discovery concerning a petitioner’s identification of the real party in interest in an inter partes review (IPR).  Artesian Home Prods. v. Gutterglove, Inc., No. IPR2018-00015. 

Read more

On January 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s decisions that a user-interface patent claims patentable subject matter and that unrebutted expert testimony did not require a jury to find anticipation, as well as its claim-construction decisions, all while damages issues remained unresolved in the trial court.  Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., appeals nos. 2016-2684 and 2017-1922.

Read more

​On January 11, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court’s decision that an obligation to assign, without an actual assignment, does not transfer ownership in a patent.  Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corp., appeal nos. 2016-2309, 2016-2310, 2016-2311.  Ownership in a patent initially vests with the named inventors, each of whom is a co-owner of a pro rata undivided interest in the patent.  Because each inventor owns a pro rata undivided interest, he or she may take actions without approval of any other co-owner.  For example, the inventor may make or sell a product covered by the patent, non-exclusively license others to make or sell such a product, or transfer by assignment ownership to a third party.  Where a patent is co-owned by more than one party, Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires that all co-owners must be joined to confer standing to bring a lawsuit against an alleged infringer. 

Read more

On January 11, 2018, Judge William J. Martinez of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss some patent-infringement claims, ruling they were barred in light of an earlier patent suit between the two parties, but withheld for later decision the question of whether other patent-infringement claims were barred.  XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, case no. 1:17-CV-944-WJM-NYW.

Read more

​On January 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion considering the apportionment problem in patent damages and overturning a jury’s $40M reasonable-royalty award.  Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, appeal no. 2016-2520.
 
Read more

Last fall, a jury found Snap-On Inc. to be a willful patent infringer and awarded patent owner Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. (Milwaukee) approximately $28 million in damages.  On December 29, 2017, Judge J. P. Stadtmueller of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin entered an order resolving the parties’ post-trial motions.  In the order, Judge Stadtmueller upheld the jury’s finding of willful infringement and required Snap-On to pay prejudgment interest for part of the time period requested by Milwaukee, but denied Milwaukee’s request to further enhance damages.  Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc., case no. 14-CV-1296-JPS.

Read more

On January 2, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered an order denying an accused infringer’s motion to compel the testimony of the named inventor of a patent in suit, even though the inventor was an employee of the plaintiff patent owner when the suit was filed, and was obligated by contract to testify if requested by the patent owner.  Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., case no. 14-CV-12298-DJC.

Read more

On December 11, 2017, Judge Richard Andrews of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ordered plaintiff Ansell Healthcare Products LLC (Ansell) to produce two documents that it had exchanged with its damages expert, Mr. John Hansel, in connection with his review of an internal settlement proposal.  Ansell Healthcare Prods. LLC v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, case no. 1:15-cv-00915.  The first document addresses Ansell’s settlement position with respect to a lump sum paid-up worldwide license to defendant Reckitt Benckiser LLC (Reckitt) for Ansell’s polyisoprene article patents.  The second document contains analysis of the business case for Ansell’s global patent litigation against Reckitt.

Read more

On December 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a report and recommendation to Chief Judge Leonard Stark recommending denial of defendant Amazon.com, Inc.’s (Amazon) Section 101 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  M2M Sols. v. Amazon, Inc., case no. 17-cv-202.

Read more

On December 14, 2017, a panel of Administrative Patent Judges (Judges Scott Daniels, Neil Powell, and Timothy Goodson) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied the parties’ joint motion to terminate an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding due to settlement.  Rubicon Commc’ns, LP v. Lego A/S, IPR case no. IPR2016-01187.

Read more

On December 13, 2017, a panel of Administrative Patent Judges (Judges Grace Karaffa Obermann, Bart Gerstenblith, and Robert Kinder) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted Petitioner Campbell Soup’s motion for a modified protective order in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings brought against patents owned by Gamon Plus.  Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., IPR case nos. IPR2017-00087, IPR2017-00091, IPR2017-00094.

Read more

On December 7, 2017, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (ED Tex.) granted motions by three suppliers to intervene in a patent lawsuit brought against retailer Wal-Mart in the Marshall Division of that district.  Team Worldwide Corp. v. Wal-Mart, case no. 2:17-cv-235.  The ED Tex. has been a notoriously popular district for patent suits for more than a decade, a period when patent suits typically could be brought in any district where the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction.  Earlier this year, however, the United States Supreme Court limited patent venue to districts (i) where the defendant corporation is incorporated, or (ii) where the defendant has a place of business and is alleged to have infringed.  T.C. Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group, 137 S.Ct. 1514 (2017).  One result of the ruling was predicted to be an upswing in E.D. Tex. suits naming national retailers as the defendants instead of their suppliers, on the theory that the retailers would be subject to venue in that district even if their suppliers were not.

Read more

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has adopted a new rule, 37 C.F.R. § 42.57, that among other things gives communications with foreign-jurisdiction patent agents the same protection they would be accorded if they were communications with a U.S. attorney.

Read more

On November 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases dealing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that were created in the America Invents Act in 2011.  IPRs have been a frequent topic of discussion in the U.S. intellectual-property community since they began; the general impression is that they are a very useful and very effective way of invalidating issued patents, but there is also concern among patent owners that IPRs may be too effective, invalidating patents that a District Court judge or jury would have upheld.

Read more

On November 27, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ordered summary judgment of patent eligibility in Soultran, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 13-cv-2637.  The claimed invention was directed to a method of check processing comprising (i) receiving check data from a point-of-sale terminal, (ii) crediting the merchant’s account, (iii) receiving the physical check and scanning it, and (iv) comparing the resulting image to the check data.  The Court ruled this invention to be patent-eligible pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101, as a matter of law.

Read more

On November 17, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”)—the division of the United States Patent and Trademark Office that handles inter-partes review proceedings—announced new internal operating procedures that will govern how the Board will handle inter partes review proceedings that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remands to the Board after appeal.  See P.T.A.B. Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) 9

Read more

On November 15, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two opinions explaining how district courts should determine whether, in cases filed prior to the recent Supreme Court TC Heartland venue decision, a defendant waived the defense of improper venue.  In the first opinion, In re Micron Techs., No. 2017-138, the Court issued a writ of mandamus and ordered the District Court to reconsider its decision that the defendant had waived the defense; in the second opinion, In re Cutsforth, Inc., No. 2017-135, the Court issued a writ of mandamus and ordered the District Court to reconsider its decision that the defendant had not waived the defense.

Read more