Posts in Courts

This week, several amicus briefs were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supporting defendant-appellees Amgen in an antitrust suit brought by rival pharmaceutical firm Sandoz, which is appealing the dismissal of its complaint by the Eastern District of Virginia. Amici, including former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, free market institute Washington Legal Foundation, and trade organizations representing the pharmaceutical industry, all strongly urge the Fourth Circuit to dismiss Sandoz’s attempt to circumvent adverse patent rulings with an overly broad antitrust theory that would disrupt the entire U.S. patent system.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision from an ex parte reexamination that found claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,039,483 anticipated and therefore unpatentable.

Broad functional genus claiming was previously a standard strategy for innovators seeking IP protection for antibodies. Prior guidance from the USPTO, including the “newly characterized antigen” test, encouraged broad claiming of antibodies based upon their function alone. For decades, that effectively allowed innovators to claim much more than they in fact discovered in practice. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Amgen decision, courts have adopted the reasoning articulated in Amgen to strike down functional genus antibody claims for lacking either enablement or written description.

Trademark law has traditionally protected the most recognizable aspects of a brand: names, logos, and slogans. Increasingly, however, companies are asking courts to protect something far less tangible, the overall identity consumers associate with a brand. Colors, product aesthetics, marketing campaigns, and even the timing of a product launch have become valuable commercial assets in their own right. The recently filed lawsuit between 7-Eleven and Nike illustrates how modern trademark disputes are moving beyond conventional source identifiers and into the realm of brand identity itself.

In any patent dispute, the strength of the patent still matters. But increasingly, it is not the only thing that matters—or even, in some cases, the thing that matters most. That means where a patent dispute takes place cannot be a tactical afterthought or viewed as a choice of federal district courts in the United States alone. This is true today more than ever because despite patents ostensibly being property—at least according to the Patent Act—which tribunal and which judges make the ultimate decisions affecting the patent often matter most of all because patents and patent enforcement have become driven by ideology and the type of fervor normally reserved highly emotionally charged discussions, like religion and politics.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., affirming a district court ruling that found several patent claims covering deep learning based dental image analysis invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter under Section 101. Dental Monitoring SAS owns U.S. Patent 11,049,248 and U.S. Patent 10,755,409, both of which relate to dental arch image analysis. The ‘248 patent covers “a method for assessing the shape of an orthodontic aligner using a deep learning device,” while the ‘409 patent covers a method for acquiring and analyzing an image of a dental arch using the same type of device.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied a request for mandamus relief by Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC, who asked the CAFC to direct the  U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to vacate its order staying a patent infringement suit pending resolution of an ex parte reexamination (EPR) of the asserted patent claims.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Linfo IP, LLC v. Trustpilot, Inc., dismissing an appeal brought by Linfo IP, LLC as moot. The dismissal followed Linfo and Trustpilot, Inc.’s settlement of their dispute while the appeal was still pending.

On July 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the dismissal  of Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels’ patent infringement suit against HighLevel Inc., holding the disputed website creation patents claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While the CAFC found that the district court erred by treating a single claim as representative of all asserted claims without adequately addressing ClickFunnels’ argument that the two dependent claims at issue contained a distinct limitation,  the panel ultimately concluded that the error was harmless

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Thursday in TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, vacating a district court’s indefiniteness ruling on one TrackTime patent. It also affirmed a jury verdict of invalidity on a related patent asserted against Amazon.com Services LLC and Audible, Inc.

The House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet held a hearing on Tuesday, titled “A Midlife Crisis? IP and the Internet After 40.” The hearing examined the changes that have occurred over the last four decades of the internet and featured witnesses including celebrities, academics and computer and media experts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Limited, affirming a preliminary injunction that blocks Hetero Labs Limited from launching a generic version of the neurological drug Nuedexta. The court also vacated a district court order that had excused Otsuka from posting a bond pending appeal, remanding the issue for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Dyk dissented in part from the majority’s claim construction and would have reversed the injunction.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in a Per Curiam opinion, today affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling that the mark MON AMI is confusingly similar to the previously registered mark, AMÌ, and that MON AMI could therefore not be registered.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s closely watched decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, which together clarified the scope of presidential authority to remove certain federal officials from office, the Court today denied the Trump Administration’s request to stay a lower court order temporarily restoring Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter to office while her challenge to her removal proceeds in court. The Court emphasized, however, that “[t]he denial of the application is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation,” leaving the substantive dispute for a later day.