Posts in Courts

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled on March 1 that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erred in its analysis of an inter partes review (IPR) filed by streaming giants Netflix and Hulu. The CAFC vacated and remanded the case, ordering the PTAB to once again review the patent dispute filed against DivX. “Because the Board legally erred in its obviousness analysis, and the error cannot be regarded as harmless, we vacate and remand,” wrote the CAFC judges in their ruling. Netflix and Hulu petitioned the PTAB to carry out an IPR in February 2020 of DivX’s U.S. Patent No. 10,225,588. The petition claimed the ‘588 patent was unpatentable due to obviousness.

Patent filings continue to be slightly depressed in the district courts and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) compared to the highs of last year, with 17 new PTAB cases and 38 new district court filings. New filings consist primarily of a few apparently funded cases—a Fortress entity, for instance, sued Amazon, and a Taiwanese entity with no Internet presence has sued Apple and Samsung on wireless charging patents, with some new Jeff Gross entity filings, a slew of Dynapass filings, and some other banking campaigns picking up steam; at the Board, most of the fillings revolved around existing campaigns Robocast and Daedalus Prime, as detailed below. Ericsson continued with challenging some Phillips patents; and there’s even a funder, Element Capital, who has been hit by inter partes reviews (IPRs) after suing in their own name (via a Singapore subsidiary, against Chinese subsidiaries of other companies, including Motorola).

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal today issued a second Director Review decision correcting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on its approach to the “compelling merits” analysis outlined in her June 2022 Guidance Memo. In AviaGames, Inc. v. Skillz Platform, Inc., IPR2022-00530, Vidal vacated the PTAB’s denial of AviaGames’ petition to institute IPR of certain claims of Skillz’s U.S. Patent 9,479,602 B1. She explained that the Board’s determination to deny the petition following a Fintiv analysis was improperly based on the district court’s judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, since that is “a statutory ground that could not have been raised before the Board” and “does not raise concerns of inefficient duplication of efforts or potentially inconsistent results between the Board and the district court.”

The United States Supreme Court is soon poised to decide the fate of the enablement requirement, and the patent community is collectively holding its breath, wondering if the Court will strike a deathblow to the biopharmaceutical industry—simultaneously making all patents harder to get and even easier to challenge than they already are. The Supreme Court does not have a strong track record of objectively getting patent issues correct, at least not from a pro-innovation standpoint, although the Justices and their supporters likely would disagree. The undeniable truth, however, is that since the Supreme Court issued its decision in eBay v. MercExchange, virtually every decision of consequence to the patent system has made patent rights weaker and patents themselves easier to successfully challenge.

A manufacturer of Radio Frequency Identification Device transponders (RFIDs), Avery Dennison Corporation, yesterday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in its appeal of a decision upholding ADASA, Inc.’s patent for RFID technology as patent eligible. Avery Dennison is urging the Court to take up the case, which it says “illustrates the depths of the Federal Circuit’s division” and represents “the other side of the coin” in the eligibility debate, in order to balance competing perspectives. While past and present petitions to the Court on eligibility have traditionally focused on uncertainty due to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) too-narrow view of the law and tendency to invalidate patents under Section 101, Avery Dennison’s petition takes the view that the Federal Circuit’s reading of 101 is too broad.

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear opening arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi on March 27. This is a case that could have profound impacts both on the invention enablement issues that have been plaguing life science patenting, but also more broadly on defining the contemporary role that the patent system will play in our innovation economy going forward. Specifically at issue will be the question of what genus claims require from an enablement perspective. Will the enablement standard be governed by the black and white, codified Section 112 statutory requirement that the specification must only teach those skilled in the art how to “make and use” the claimed invention? Or will the Supreme Court lean on lower court-based additions to the standard that the specification must enable those skilled in the art “to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments” without undue experimentation?

On February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a motion for leave filed by the U.S. Solicitor General to participate in oral argument, as well as for divided argument and for enlargement of oral argument time, in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. While the Court’s decision to grant the motion shows its interest in the Solicitor General’s arguments in favor of limiting the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act, a reply brief filed the same day by petitioner Abitron argues that the federal government’s proposed legal tests still go too far in allowing Lanham Act claims to reach foreign infringing sales. Last September, the U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief representing the views of the federal government on the issues in Abitron Austria, a case which asks whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit erred in awarding civil remedies under the Lanham Act for infringement of U.S. trademarks through purely foreign sales that neither reached the United States nor confused U.S. consumers. In its brief, the Solicitor General urged the Supreme Court to grant Abitron’s petition for writ of certiorari and rein in the Tenth Circuit’s approach toward awarding Lanham Act damages for foreign infringing sales.

I attended the hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Maalouf v. Microsoft on Monday February 6, 2023, and the CAFC issued its opinion in the case this past Thursday. This case has curious origins. Through his company Dareltech, Ramzi Khalil Maalouf, a Lebanese immigrant and U.S. citizen, sued Xiaomi, a Chinese multinational corporation, for patent infringement in New York. The case was dismissed without prejudice because Xiaomi was found not to have a physical presence in New York, notwithstanding their proven secret office.  Later, Microsoft, naming Xiaomi as the real party in interest, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In other words, a U.S. Big Tech multinational acted on behalf of a China-controlled multinational to invalidate the patents of a small American inventor, thus clearing the way into the U.S. market for the China-controlled multinational.

Companies rely on copyright protections to shield their software, data sets, and other works that are licensed to their customers; however, a reframing of what constitutes a “transformative use,” and the extent a license can restrict such fair uses, may whittle away all avenues of protections. On October 22, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments for Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. The question before the Court is where does a copyright holder’s right to create derivative works stop and “fair use” of the work begin? Companies that license data sets or data feeds should pay close attention, as the Court’s decision could narrow contractual remedies. 

A number of amici weighed in this week on Novartis Pharmaceuticals’ petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Justices to consider whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) should have been allowed to vacate the decision of a previous three-judge panel composed of different judges, thus invalidating Novartis’ patent for a dosing regimen for its multiple sclerosis drug, Gilenya. In January of this year, Novartis followed through on its September 2022 promise that it would appeal the CAFC’s June 2022 decision invalidating its U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 to the Supreme Court, after the CAFC denied its request to rehear the case.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order denying Cellspin Soft’s motion for recusal that sought the vacatur of a summary judgment that released Fitbit, Nike, Under Armour, and others from patent infringement liability. Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote “in short, plaintiff’s attack on the integrity of the judiciary… not only demonstrates a measure of desperation, but is divorced from the law and the facts.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday, February 17, ruled in a precedential opinion that a Nebraska district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction barring the owner of patents on holiday string lights from communicating to its customers that a competitor was infringing its patents. Lite-Netics, LLC sued Holiday Bright Lights (HBL) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska for infringement of its U.S. Patent Nos. 7,549,779 and 8,128,264, both titled “Magnetic Light Fixture.” HBL was at one time a customer of Lite-Netics and also sells holiday string lights, including one it calls a “Magnetic Cord,” which is one of the two products Lite-Netics alleged infringed its patents. HBL’s U.S. Patent No. 11,333,309 describes the product and issued in 2022 based on a 2021 application. Lite-Netics’ patents issued in 2009 and 2012.

On February 17, 2023, Germany ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court. This means that the Unified Patent Court (UPC) will definitely go live on June 1, 2023. Thus, it’s time to get one’s ducks in a row and to prepare for this new court system, which provides for a new pan European injunction in patent matters. In order to faciliate such preparation, we will be providing a series of five articles over the coming months until the system starts that will deal with the most important aspects of the UPC.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued a precedential opinion clarifying the requirements for the disclosure of technology that is ready for patenting at a public event to qualify as being “in public use” for purposes of the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) public use bar under 35 USC 102(b). The appeal stems from Minerva Surgical, Inc.’s suit against Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,186,208, titled “Systems for endometrial ablation.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment for Hologic that the relevant claims were anticipated under the public use bar of the pre-AIA Section 102(b).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential opinion on Monday that reversed and vacated in part a previous lower court ruling in a patent case related to fuel tank sensors. In 2020, SSI Technologies filed a lawsuit against Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical LTD (DZEM), alleging infringement of two patents that covered fuel tank sensor technology. SSI accused DZEM of producing systems to reduce emissions for diesel truck engines that infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,733,153 and 9,535,038. In September 2021, a Wisconsin district court dismissed the patent infringement claims by SSI, as well as DZEM’s counterclaims that the patents were invalid.