Posts in District Courts

On Friday, Judge Beryl Howell issued an opinion in Dr. Stephen Thaler’s challenge against the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) over the denial of his application for a work generated entirely using generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology. The opinion supports the USCO’s refusal to register a work in which the claimant disclosed in the application that the image was the result of an AI system, called The Creativity Machine. The case is Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter and The United States Copyright Office (1:22-cv-01564) (June 2, 2022).

Texas has long been home to the busiest patent courts in the country. In the Eastern District, Judges Rodney Gilstrap and Roy Payne have for the last decade-plus seen more patent cases than any other judges in the country. Since taking the bench in 2018, Judge Alan Albright in the Western District has had the most active patent docket, taking 18% of all patent cases in 2022, for example. Much has been written about the judges’ perceived unwillingness to grant transfer motions in patent cases (and resulting challenges to the Federal Circuit) and disfavor of staying cases pending inter partes review. These factors suggest that a defendant in these courts have few options to stay or transfer their case.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in a decision published Monday, denied the defendants’ motions to vacate asset freezes in a case brought by Gilead alleging a massive HIV drug counterfeiting ring that involves “hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth” of fake medications. In January 2022, the court unsealed documents in the suit against a slew of defendants who Gilead said sold, marketed, and distributed counterfeits of its HIV medications. Gilead’s complaint sought immediate monetary and injunctive relief, including seizure at certain of the defendants’ premises, as well as relief for trademark and trade dress infringement and trademark dilution, among other alleged violations.

You always remember your first jury trial. Mine happened almost 50 years ago, and I still vividly recall sitting with the partner to work on the “instructions” that the judge would be giving. He explained to me that the jury would be told what the statutes said (this was a contract case), and they would be responsible for deciding the facts that determined their verdict. As it turned out, we didn’t win, and that was the end of it. Although an appeal was possible, overturning a jury verdict is very hard to do. And that’s as it should be…. That’s why I was surprised to see the recent opinion in Syntel v. Trizetto.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday issued a precedential decision affirming a district court’s mixed ruling in a patent infringement case involving two patents owned by United Therapeutics on the pulmonary hypertension drug, Tyvaso.
U.S. Patent 10,716,793 and U.S. Patent 9,593,066 cover methods of treating pulmonary hypertension and pharmaceutical compositions comprising treprostinil—Tyvaso is an inhaled solution formulation of treprostinil. United Therapeutics also owns a new drug application (NDA) for Tyvaso, No. 022387.

On Friday, July 21, an Illinois district court ruled that a Pakistani employee of a medical device distribution company infringed on Ethicon’s trademark when he bought, marketed and sold counterfeit Ethicon devices. Ethicon is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and won an $18 million default judgment. Ethicon first filed a complaint against the defendant Mudassar Shah in July 2020 and alleged federal and state trademark infringement of five different trademarks. The laundry list of accusations also included trademark dilution, false advertising, common law unjust enrichment, common law tortious interference with contract, and breach of settlement agreement.

Patent eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been effective tools at the pleading stage for parties defending allegations of patent infringement. Defendants often attempt to avoid the costs of litigation by filing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6), seeking to invalidate the asserted patent(s) on the grounds that the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter — such as an “abstract idea.” Previously, a key tactic for plaintiffs to overcome such “Section 101 motions” was by amending the complaint and annexing an expert declaration. Recently, however, this strategy has been called into question due to a recent decision in Marble VOIP Partners LLC v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.,

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit yesterday upheld a district court ruling that embedding images from Instagram posts in third-party websites does not constitute copyright infringement. The case has to do with two photographers’ images that were embedded and posted with articles run by Buzzfeed News and Time from the photographers’ public Instagram accounts. The district court and the Ninth Circuit both cited Perfect 10 v. Amazon as precluding relief.

Novartis is currently involved in a multi-district patent litigation campaign to block generic entrants for Entresto®, which is Novartis’ blockbuster heart medication. In the fall of 2022, Novartis went to trial on the validity of one of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,101,659 (“the ‘659 patent”). On July 7, 2023, the district court invalidated the patent for lack of written description despite rejecting an enablement defense based upon the same evidence. The district court’s decision highlights a clear tension between claim construction and enablement that, if left to stand, could permit pharmaceutical companies to block lower-cost generic medications with patents they did not actually invent.

Last week, comedian Sarah Silverman and authors Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey sued OpenAI in a U.S. district court, alleging the company’s generative AI product, ChatGPT, infringes on their copyrighted content. In addition to copyright infringement, the trio also claimed that the AI company violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), unfair competition laws and unjustly enriched the company. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of “copying massive amounts of text” used to train ChatGPT to produce new text from prompts. Language models like OpenAI rely on datasets of text or other media to train its generative capabilities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today issued a precedential opinion that said claim preclusion does not apply to allegations of induced infringement based on an earlier finding of direct infringement. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 8,206,987, owned by Inguran, LLC and directed to “a method for sorting bull sperm cells according to a specific DNA characteristic in order to preselect the gender of a domestic animal’s offspring,” according to the opinion. Inguran does business as STGenetics (ST). ST has been involved in litigation with “bull stud” company, ABS Global, Inc., since 2014.

On June 28, a group of 16 individuals filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of California against generative artificial intelligence (GAI) developer OpenAI on several alleged violations of federal and state law on privacy, unfair business practices and computer fraud. The class action lawsuit’s discussion on property interests in consumer data underscores the intellectual property issues that have arisen since the advent of generative AI platforms like ChatGPT, which scrapes personal data and IP-protected material to train its GAI systems.

On June 14, a series of 17 music publishers, members of the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of Tennessee against the social media platform, Twitter. The music publishers’ suit alleges claims of direct, vicarious and contributory copyright infringement by Twitter involving about 1,700 copyrighted songs, many of which continue to remain accessible in…

In what may foreshadow upcoming changes to case allocations in the Western District of Texas, Judge Alan Albright of the Waco Division appears to have revived his former practice of retaining cases transferred from the Waco Division to the Austin Division following granted Section 1404 motions (i.e., convenience transfers). In his first years on the bench, Judge Albright habitually retained cases transferred out of Waco to the “sister” Austin Division on his personal docket. As one of the more notable examples, all three of the (much-covered) VLSI v. Intel litigations were transferred to Austin and retained by Judge Albright; two of the three cases were then retransferred back to Waco to allow trial to timely proceed, notwithstanding COVID-related closures in Austin.

On June 9, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several affiliate organizations filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Ohio raising a series of constitutional challenges to provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). At issue in the lawsuit are several statutes granting the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) the authority to set prices for Medicare drugs. The U.S. Chamber is challenging a lack of oversight for so-called “negotiation” procedures as well as an onerous excise tax on several grounds, including separation of powers and due process violations.