Posts in US Supreme Court

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees, inter alia, that no person shall be deprived of property (including intellectual property), without due process of law. For instance, it is settled law that a federal statute may be so arbitrary and capricious as to violate due process. Similarly, it is settled that an administrative agency, e.g., the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), cannot escape the due process of law requirement when processing patent applications. In theory (less in reality), due process of the law extends to judicial as well as political branches of government, and judgments that violate constitutional limitations and guarantees are void or voidable.

In mid-October, a pair of lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of Virginia by different groups of professional models seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Lanham Act from adult entertainment clubs for the unauthorized use of the models’ images in promotional materials. The filings come at about the same time that the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a petition for writ of certiorari from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which asks the nation’s highest court whether the Second Circuit was wrong to create a public prominence requirement that prevents lesser known models from being able to assert their rights to their own likeness.

I recently opened a Bordeaux and re-read the petition for certiorari in American Axle v. Neapco. Not because I like watching horror films or black-and-white footage of a piano sliding downstairs, mind you. But well, you know. The Petition is well written and the Bordeaux did its job; however, it was still painful to read the recounting of the successive bad decisions to invalidate American Axle’s patents in light of the arguments made by accused infringer Neapco. Yet, in context, it’s just another of the thousand blows against U.S. inventors and our innovation ecosystem. It’s shameful that a company with a new and useful technology in the automotive industry was stymied in its appeal by our nation’s highest patent court.

The latest ruling involving patent eligibility of medical diagnostics comes from Chief Judge Connolly of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in a consolidated case brought by CareDx, Inc. and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University against Natera, Inc. (Civil Action No. 19-0567-CFC-CJB) and Eurofins Viracor, Inc. (Civil Action No. 19-1804-CFC-CJB). After initially denying the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. §101 in December 2020, the Court then later denied certification motions for interlocutory appeal and instead ruled sua sponte to reconsider its own denial of summary judgment. Following an evidentiary hearing during which expert testimony was heard, the Court reversed its previous ruling to find all claims of the asserted patents invalid as a matter of law under §101.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted a motion made by the Acting U.S. Solicitor General to participate in oral argument as an amicus in the case of Unicolors v. H&M. The case asks the Court to decide whether the Ninth Circuit properly construed the language of 17 U.S.C. § 411 relating to whether courts must have evidence of intent to defraud before referring copyright registration validity questions to the Copyright Office. Oral argument is set for November 7.

Under U.S. trademark law and court precedent, determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion involves weighing a number of factors (13 factors to be exact), known as the “Dupont factors,” set out in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). The CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals) is a predecessor court to the Federal Circuit. As noted by the Federal Circuit, not all the DuPont factors may be relevant or of equal weight in a given case and any one of the factors may control a particular case. Under 35 U.S.C. §101, patent-eligible inventions include any process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter and any new and useful improvement thereof. There are, in addition, three judicially created exceptions to the broad recitation of Section 101: laws of nature; natural phenomena; and abstract ideas…. If the goal of Section 101 is to act as a gatekeeper, rather than a roadblock, the factors approach seems appropriate to employ in a patentability analysis.

On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. in which it clarified the proper limits of the centuries-old doctrine of assignor estoppel, which operates to prevent an inventor who assigns a patent to another for value from later claiming that the patent assigned is invalid during litigation, holding that the doctrine only applies when “the assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent.” The decision underscores the need to keep in mind a number of factors when preparing and executing patent assignments.  

On August 2, New York City-based marketing company Bobcar Media filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to consider various legal issues related to the use of Rule 36 summary affirmances by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Bobcar contends that the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 practice, which allows the court to issue one-word affirmances of lower court decisions despite being fully briefed on the issues and holding oral arguments, “has gotten out of hand, contravening the principles set forth by the Founders of the Constitution, and basic tenets of justice.”

On July 29, several IP organizations and one global snack conglomerate filed amicus briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court asking the nation’s highest court to grant a petition for writ of certiorari to take up Ezaki Glico Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lotte International America Corp. At issue in the appeal is a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the definition of “functionality” in trademark law. In finding the stick-shaped, chocolate-covered Pocky cookies sold by Ezaki Glico to be “functional” because of the usefulness of their design, amici argue that the Third Circuit erred in its application of functionality doctrine in a way that threatens trade dress protections for any product when any part of the product’s design provides some usefulness.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that plants could be protected with utility patents. J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc., v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. 534 U.S. 124 (2001). Forty-one years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that living organisms were patentable. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (19080). Before these landmark cases, plants and living matter were not protectable with patents. The rationale of the Supreme Court in J.E.M. and Chakrabarty supports patent protection for inventions by non-humans, i.e., artificial intelligence inventors.

In March of this year, a bipartisan group of senators asked Drew Hirshfeld, who is Performing the functions and duties of the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to “publish a request for information on the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States, evaluate the responses,” and provide the senators with a detailed summary of the findings in order to assist them as they consider appropriate legislative action. The letter gave a deadline of March 5, 2022 to submit a report on the topic. Now, a Federal Register Notice (FRN) scheduled to be published July 9 is requesting answers and input from stakeholders to 13 questions/topics to assist in that effort, according to a publicly posted draft of the FRN.

In a recent Supreme Court decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, the Court held that the unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) exercises authority of a “principal officer” and is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an “inferior office.” Instead of declaring their appointment unconstitutional, the Court’s remedial ruling was aimed at making PTAB judges “inferior officers.” It did so by a ruling interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 6(c) as enabling the USPTO Director to “review decisions rendered by APJs,” subordinating them to the Director’s full supervision.

This week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would be implementing an interim rule at the agency in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s late June decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew. Today, the Office held a Boardside Chat with Drew Hirshfeld, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO; Scott R. Boalick, Chief Administrative Patent Judge; Jacqueline W. Bonilla, Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge; and Scott C. Weidenfeller, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge to explain how the interim process will work and answer questions submitted by the public. Janet Gongola, Vice Chief Judge for Engagement at the PTAB, moderated the panel.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC that the doctrine of assignor estoppel”—which bars the assignor of a patent from later attacking the patent’s validity—“is well grounded in centuries-old fairness principles…[but] applies only when the assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent.” Most expected the Court to rule along those lines following oral argument earlier this year, but the split decision, which included two separate dissents, could signal this Court’s future interest in patent cases. Commenters below also said that the ruling will result in the doctrine of assignor estoppel being applied much less frequently and in much narrower circumstances, and that it will almost certainly never be applied in employee agreement situations going forward. Here is what some stakeholders had to say.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 this morning in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC that the doctrine of assignor estoppel”—which bars the assignor of a patent from later attacking the patent’s validity—“is well grounded in centuries-old fairness principles…[but] applies only when the assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent.” Thus, while the Court rejected Minerva’s request that the doctrine be abandoned, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) was vacated and the case remanded to address “whether Hologic’s new claim is materially broader” than the ones that were assigned.