Posts in Litigation

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit affirms a Section 101 invalidation of patent claims in favor of Mayo Collaborative Services; Apple wins an order to limit damages in Qualcomm patent case; Google frets over proposed European Union copyright rules; India proposes jail time for film piracy; patent validity challenges drag down the stock of a major pharmaceutical firm; and a snag in the U.S.-China trade talks throws Wall Street for a loop.

The cost of obtaining a U.S. patent has not significantly changed for the past 10 years. This remarkable stability is confirmed by the AIPLA Economic Survey, our own fees, and our general knowledge of the market. The major costs for obtaining a U.S. patent include the drafting fee, the cost of responding to USPTO office actions and the USPTO fees. The first two fees have not increased in over 10 years for many firms and the government fees have increased but remain relatively low compared to the other fees. With respect to the price of issued patents, the 2018 IAM Benchmarking Survey points to a bear market for U.S. patents, which are “cheaper” year after year. A fall in prices is reported, with 24% of corporate respondents stating that patents are cheaper than a year ago; the previous year’s survey had 36% reporting a fall in prices. Such relatively stable cost and low price are disharmonious with the fact that a U.S. patent covers the largest market in the world—and a growing market. Despite a slight dip in 2009, the U.S. GDP has grown steadily for the past 20 years. Even if the recent volatility in the stock market is a sign of a difficult 2019, the long-term positive trend is likely to continue.

Bioinformatics is a growing interdisciplinary technological field in which computing and software resources are applied to biological data and solve biological problems. For example, bioinformatics can be used to predict protein sequences through analysis of large databases of biological data to enable the development of new drug therapies. Advances in computing and software, like artificial intelligence (AI), open increasing possibilities in bioinformatics. Bioinformatics is growing rapidly—the market is predicted to exceed $16 billion by 2022. As with most growing industries, mechanisms that protect and promote innovations are key to supporting that growth. Thus, it is no surprise that the number of patent applications filed and assigned to the designated bioinformatics art unit was 40% higher in 2017 than it was in 2010. Despite this significant increase in applications, for the last five years, the subject-matter-eligibility requirement (codified as 35 U.S.C. § 101) of the U.S. patent law has been particularly vexing to applicants of computer-related inventions like bioinformatics.

On January 24, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury’s finding that the defendant-appellant, Medtronic, induced surgeons to infringe two patents of plaintiff-appellee, Dr. Mark Barry, which were directed to methods of correcting spinal column anomalies, such as those due to scoliosis, by applying force to multiple vertebrae at the same time. Medtronic appealed on several grounds, “principally concerning the public-use and on-sale statutory bars, but also concerning prior invention, inequitable conduct, and induced infringement.” The majority of the panel rejected the appellant’s arguments, while Chief Judge Prost dissented and would have found that one of the patents was invalid due to either the public use or on sale bars of Section 102(b). Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 2017-2463, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2305 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2019) (Before Prost, Chief Judge, Moore and Taranto, Circuit Judges) (Opinion by Taranto) (Dissent by Prost).

To the casual observer, the Supreme Court’s January 23 decision in Helsinn v. Teva may seem like no big deal. In just a few pages of text, the Court informs us that Congress did not change the established meaning of “on sale” prior art when it rewrote Section 102 of the Patent Act in 2011. Move along, nothing to see here, right? More than a few commentators seem to assume that we’ll simply return to the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) status quo, and that sales of an invention, whether public or private, will just continue to trigger a familiar statutory one-year clock for filing a patent application. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the impact of private sales (and of non-public commercial uses) on the patentability of later-filed patent applications will be significant, and very different from pre-AIA law. Patent applicants and owners of patents that were issued under the AIA have every reason to worry about traps for the unwary.

IPWatchdog has been closely following the growing trend of Rule 36 affirmances at the Federal Circuit. Perhaps one of the most widely publicized of these was the January 15 decision in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, in which co-defendant Apple appealed a September 2016 jury verdict from the Eastern District of Texas awarding $302.4 million in damages to secure communications patent owner VirnetX. That verdict said that Apple had infringed two patents through its VPN On Demand and FaceTime services. While some might say a judgment that ultimately totaled more than $400 million after enhanced damages and interest warrants some kind of explanation, a look at the oral argument transcript suggests that this might be one where Rule 36 was actually appropriate—or, at least, expected. Nonetheless, “with $400 million at stake, the Federal Circuit at a minimum should have explained in a page or two why the decision below was so clearly correct, and Apple’s appeal was so clearly unnecessary,” said IPWatchdog’s Gene Quinn.

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) are patents that are unavoidable for the implementation of a standardized technology. They represent core, pioneering innovation that entire industries will build upon. These patents protect innovation that has taken extraordinary effort to achieve. Standard Development Organizations (SDOs) exist as a mechanism for industry innovators to work together to collectively identify and select the best and most promising innovations that will become the foundation for the entire industry to build upon for years to come. Those contributing patented technologies to the development of a standard are asked to provide a FRAND (which stands for Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) assurance, in essence committing to providing access to patents that are or may become essential to the implementation of the standard.

Early last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum affirming the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in Hope Road Merchandising v. Jammin Java Corporation. The Ninth Circuit’s decision upholds a nearly $2.5 million damages award for trademark infringement in favor of Hope Road, the licensing and merchandising arm for the family of the late reggae icon Bob Marley, against coffee distributor Jammin Java.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: Huawei is in hot water with both the U.S. and UK governments, while Qualcomm has just completed a new patent licensing deal with Huawei; IBM tops a new global list for most artificial intelligence-related patent applications filed; Apple files another appeal of a major patent infringement damages award handed to VirnetX in the Eastern District of Texas; and see how the biggest IP players are doing Wall Street.

Patents covering an antibody are often claimed by the antibody’s function (the residues where it binds to the antigen) rather than its structure (amino-acid sequence). This tactic can successfully cast a very wide net of patent protection over potentially millions of different antibodies. In doing so, even if the patent holder’s own antibodies never make it out of the laboratory, the patents can nevertheless corner the market on intellectual property covering a new class of inhibitors. The risk of this strategy, however, is that extremely broad patent scope can simultaneously doom a patent’s validity for not being sufficiently enabled or lacking written description. As an example, a recent decision from the District of Delaware, MorphoSys AG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., No. 16-221 (LPS) (Dkt. 471) (Jan. 25, 2019), invalidated broad antibody patents for not being sufficiently enabled, as well as coming near to invalidating the same patents for lacking written description. The case is important to the growing body of patents covering biologic drugs because it delineates more precisely when functionally-claimed antibody patents can survive enablement and written description challenges.

This marks the final installment in my four-part interview with IBM’s Vice President and Assistant General Counsel Mark Ringes and Chief Patent Counsel Manny Schecter. I found our conversation fascinating and want to thank them both again for their time and insight. Below, we conclude with an in-depth discussion on how the U.S. patent system is affecting startups and the state of enforceability following Director Iancu’s Section 101 Guidance.

When you see a docket report with a patent lawsuit filed by a non-practicing entity (NPE), do you think it’s just another ‘patent troll’ taking advantage of the system? Or would you be willing to consider that underlying every patent litigation is a human story of invention, which is the embodiment and manifestation of an innovator’s aspirations and sacrifices? These human stories are too often marginalized in the ‘patent troll’ debate. One such story is that of Wayne Evans. His life took him from the depths of poverty and loss to the struggles of being an entrepreneur raising a family and, ultimately, to late-in-life success as an inventor, innovator, and author.

Following a Federal Circuit ruling last March in which Google lost the latest in a nine-year battle with Oracle over Google’s unauthorized use of nine lines of code and 37 packages of Oracle’s Java API packages in its Android operating system, Google has once again petitioned the Supreme Court to step in.

According to Federal Circuit Rules, a Rule 36 judgment can be entered without an opinion when it is determined by the panel that one of five conditions exist relating to the underlying decision being sufficient or exhibiting no error of law. In such cases, because a written opinion would not have precedential value, a judgment of affirmance without opinion is allowed.

The Federal Circuit use of Rule 36 has been well documented and extremely problematic. As of January 28, the Federal Circuit has issued 44 decisions in 2019. Of those 44 decisions, 24 have been Rule 36 judgments, which are simply one-word judgments that substantively say: “Affirmed.” Twenty of the decisions have been non-precedential decisions. So far in 2019, only 13 decisions of the Federal Circuit have been designated precedential. To do the math, this means 42.1% of the Court’s decisions have been Rule 36 judgments. More generally, combining Rule 36 and non-precedential opinions together, we see that 77.2% of the Court’s decisions are non-precedential, and only 22.8% are precedential.

Today marks the return of our Other Barks & Bites feature, which will profile a collection of news headlines from around the IP world and across practice areas every Friday. This week, the patent spat between Apple and Qualcomm heats up at the PTAB; China’s intellectual property court at Beijing shows signs of heightened requirements in trademark appeals for foreign entities; and the European Union delays debate on copyright reforms that would affect major tech firms that aggregate news and videos online.