Posts in Federal Circuit

The Eastern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction against Aurobindo in favor of Mylan in the case of Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. On appeal at the Federal Ciruit, Aurobindo challenged three district court findings: 1) it was likely that Aurobindo infringed; 2) Aurobindo failed to raise a substantial question of validity; and 3) there was irreparable harm to Mylan. The Federal Circuit found that, while the district court made some errors, it correctly analyzed one of the three Mylan patents, and the preliminary injunction was affirmed.

This marks the third return to the Federal Circuit of a dispute (the 050 case) between the ArcelorMittal Appellants and the AK Steel Appellees… Overall, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment invalidating ArcelorMittal’s reissue patent, finding that the district court: (1) possessed subject matter jurisdiction when it granted summary judgment, (2) properly followed the Court’s most recent mandate on remand, and (3) properly exercised its discretion to deny a Rule 56(d) request for new discovery on commercial success… When appropriate given all of the circumstances, a district court may have jurisdiction to consider claims of a reissue patent on remand, although the claims were not asserted at trial, e.g. if the reissue claims are sufficiently connected to the original case and the remand for such consideration is requested. A case or controversy is not moot, and jurisdiction is not avoided, by tendering an unexecuted and conditional covenant not to sue.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, venue in patent infringement cases are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which states that patent infringement suits can be brought in the district where the defendant “resides” or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.

I have always argued that software patent eligibility is a must in a country where patent rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. That is, all fields of innovation should be treated equally under the law such that one field of endeavor (e.g., pharmaceuticals or electronics) is not deemed more “patent worthy” than other fields (i.e., computer science and information technology). This is especially true when one considers how important software is to the U.S. economy… A substantial amount of U.S. commerce is software-dependent and the associated innovation in the field – when novel and non-obvious – deserves stable and predictable patent law protection!

Cisco challenged Cirrex’s patent via inter partes reexamination, asserting a lack of written description. The Board affirmed the Examiner’s findings, that the patent, as amended, contained both patentable and unpatentable claims. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that all of the claims are unpatentable for lack of written description.

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision in an inter partes review proceeding, finding the Board did not set forth its reasoning for finding the asserted claims obvious in enough detail for the Court to determine whether it was supported by substantial evidence… The Board also did not set forth its reasoning in sufficient detail for the Court to determine whether its obviousness decision was procedurally proper. The Board must comply with certain procedural requirements in conducting an inter partes review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including informing the patent owner of “the matters of fact and law asserted,” give the patent owner an opportunity to submit facts and arguments, and permit the patent owner to submit rebuttal evidence.

The Court disagreed that the district court’s sole basis for finding exceptional circumstances was that NOVA filed an action in equity. The Court noted that the district court also relied on the substantive weakness of NOVA’s position, which can independently support an exceptional-case determination. It is the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position that can lead to an exceptional case determination not correctness or success of that position. For instance, NOVA’s allegations of fraud were supported exclusively by conflicting testimony, a fact going to the strength of the action.

In the case of Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of summary judgment for Apple Inc. (“Apple”). The Court held that statements made by a patent owner during an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding, whether before or after an institution decision, can be relied upon to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer… To invoke prosecution disclaimer, the statements must constitute a clear and unmistakable surrender of claim scope. If a prosecution argument is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it cannot rise to the level of a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.

We need to remember that we’ve seen America’s patent system in near complete collapse before. In the 1960s and 1970s the Supreme Court never saw a patent that was valid, which lead to the creation of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the 1970s and early 1980s there was great concern that Japan would win the technology future and America would become an also-ran in the burgeoning technological revolution, but that never happened… In the 1980s, a strong patent system was the primary driver for the economic achievements that unleashed American enterprise and allowed the United States to compete on the world stage. It worked in the 1980s to address what was a similarly difficult time, and it will work today.

About 5,100 patent infringement cases were filed in the U.S. during 2016, according to the PwC litigation study. This represents a 9 percent drop in lawsuits from 2015’s totals and the third straight year of decline since 2013, when more than 6,000 patent suits were filed. As the PwC study notes, this decline stands in stark contrast to the 6 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for patent case filings since 1991. It’s also the largest deviation between the rate of case filings and the rate of U.S. patent grants since that time.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential decision in Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. Ericsson, Inc. (2016-1739, 2016-1740, 2016-1741) directed to three related IPRs, denying that the patentee was denied due process when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) employed a “surprise” claim construction in its opinion that had not been explicitly argued by either side to find the claims obvious. Because the Federal Circuit decided that the patentee had both notice and an opportunity to respond, it held that no due process violation occurred.

In a rare IPR affirming patentability, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) found claims of US Patent No. 6,945,013 to be patentable that were directed to a “method for automatically aseptically bottling aseptically sterilized foodstuffs” in which bottles are “aseptically disinfected at a rate greater than 100 bottles per minute”. However, this unusual pro-patentee outcome was too much for the Federal Circuit. It ultimately vacated and remanded on claim construction grounds, thus highlighting the success of IPRs in achieving their goal of judicial economy.

Patlex, which dealt with reexamination of applications by an examiner — not by an Article I tribunal — could be considered a next step beyond McCormick. MCM, however, simply cannot be viewed as consistent with either Patlex or McCormick on any level. Indeed, the Supreme Court was abundantly clear in McCormick, which remains good law. The courts of the United States (i.e., Article III courts), not the department that issued the patent, is the only entity vested with the authority to set aside or annul a patent right. Since the PTAB is not a court of the United States, it has no authority to invalidate patent rights. It is just that simple.

Appellant Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Affinity”) appealed from the inter partes reexamination of its patent filed by Apple Inc. (“Apple”). Apple requested reexamination after Affinity asserted the patent against Apple in district court. The parties settled their dispute and filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with the district court… The estoppel provision of Pre-AIA Section 317(b), as applied to Inter Partes Reexamination, requires a “Final Decision,” which must show that the estopped party has not sustained its burden of proving invalidity of any patent claim in suit. Thus, a joint stipulation and order of dismissal “without prejudice” did not bar the maintenance of the Inter Partes Reexamination.

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision to uphold the unpatentability of several claims of a patent owned by Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Affinity”). An Examiner initially found the claims to be unpatentable during two inter partes reexaminations and an ex parte reexamination of Affinity’s patent…. The estoppel provision of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) for reexamination proceedings applies, claim-by-claim, to the party in the litigation, and does not trigger termination of reexamination proceedings involving other parties and other claims.