Posts in Litigation

On March 13, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) filed a reply brief urging the Supreme Court on to reverse a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that held BOOKING.COM to be a registrable trademark. The case was set to be argued on Monday, March 23, but was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Fifteen parties have filed amicus briefs in the case, most of those in support of Booking.com. In response to Booking.com’s brief of February 20, the USPTO primarily argued that, 1) Goodyear Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co. remains good law and resolves the question presented in the present case, 2) Sound trademark policy supports the conclusion that adding a top-level domain, such as .com, to a generic term does not lead to a protectable trademark, and 3) Booking.com’s survey evidence does not provide a sound basis for treating the term “Booking.com” as a registrable trademark.

The Supreme Court in SAS (SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu) was quite clear that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has to follow the statute when conducting Inter Partes Review (IPR). So, when Facebook sought to enter patent claims into their IPR against Windy City Innovations past the one-year deadline dictated by 35 USC § 315(b), the PTAB had conveniently written themselves an opinion that allowed Facebook to join Facebook to circumvent the deadline. The Board’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) used the language in USC § 315(c) and had written that the statutory use of the words “any person” allowed them to join a party to itself. See Proppant Express Invs., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, No. IPR2018-00914, Paper 21, at 4–6 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2018). After the CAFC’s Facebook v. Windy City decision, it’s clear that any PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel statutory interpretation is irrelevant. Practitioners should not accept any conclusions made by the Board about a statute, and petitioners should be more assured that a reasoned argument will prevail.

In the age of electronic filing, working from home and sheltering in place appears to have accelerated—or at least not slowed down significantly—district court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings. This week saw a return to form, with 31 new PTAB petitions and 72 new district court complaints. Large district court assertions nearing the one-year bar drove up the PTAB filings; on the district court side, existing non-practicing entities (NPE) campaigns added a fair number of defendants, and a dispute between WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development and Huawei resulted in a half-dozen complaints.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied rehearing en banc in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, a decision that made the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) administrative patent judges (APJs) “inferior officers” under the U.S. Appointments Clause, in order to skirt the problem that they had been unconstitutionally appointed under the America Invents Act. Five of the 12 Federal Circuit judges wrote separately to explain their reasons for denying, or dissenting from denial on, rehearing. Judge Moore wrote to concur with the denial, and Judges O’Malley, Reyna and Chen joined, saying that granting rehearing “would only create unnecessary uncertainty and disruption.” Moore added that the Arthrex panel followed Supreme Court precedent in concluding that APJs were improperly appointed principal officers, and also followed precedent in its solution which severed a portion of the statute “to solve that constitutional problem while preserving the remainder of the statute and minimizing disruption to the inter partes review system Congress created.”

Blackbeard and his band of pirates pillaged and plundered up and down North Carolina’s Outer Banks more than 300 years ago, inspiring stories (both true and fictional) that capture imaginations to this day. On March 23, the battleground shifted from the watery landscape of Davy Jones’ Locker to the decidedly more law-abiding U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices unanimously ruled that North Carolina’s display of copyrighted footage showing recovery of the legendary pirate’s ship does not violate copyright law. The Supreme Court’s decision is a key victory for advocates who say sovereign immunity should shield states from copyright infringement suits by an individual.

In 2019, the issue of preservation of constitutional arguments before the USPTO, which had basically been dormant for a decade, was abruptly and dramatically revived. Now the subject of whether constitutional arguments generally ought to be preserved before the agency is settled, at least for the time being. Constitutional arguments should ordinarily be preserved before the agency; otherwise those constitutional arguments might be summarily deemed forfeited on appeal.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Monday granted Katy Perry’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and vacated the jury’s verdicts regarding liability and damages. In particular, the court found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the extrinsic test, whereby the court determined whether any elements of plaintiffs’ eight-note ostinato (defined as “a continually repeated musical phrase or rhythm”) from the song “Joyful Noise” were protected and objectively similar to the allegedly infringing eight-note ostinato from Perry’s song “Dark Horse.”

On March 13, American semiconductor developer Broadcom Corporation filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California  alleging claims of patent infringement against streaming media producer and provider Netflix, Inc. At a moment in history when streaming services are going to be in higher demand than ever for some time due to social distancing mandates, the complaint marks the first chapter in what could become an interesting legal battle involving dynamic networking and video encoding patent claims. If Netflix is found to infringe, the streaming video giant could ultimately be facing a large verdict. Broadcom is asserting claims from nine U.S. patents and accuses Netflix of directly infringing the patent claims through its Internet video streaming technology and indirectly infringing by inducing end users to infringe through their use of the Netflix software application

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia finding that GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance, Inc. (GMS) infringed Hafco Foundry and Machine Company, Inc.’s (Hafco) design patent, U.S. Design Patent No. D681,684 (the ’684 patent), directed to a rock dust blower for distributing rock dust in areas such as coal mines.  The CAFC also affirmed the district court’s denial of GMS’ request for a new trial due to errors in the jury instructions. Judge Newman concurred with the majority’s decision but wrote separately to note that she would have resolved the matter of damages by accepting Hafco’s proposed remitter of $110,000, which was the total of Hafco’s lost profits.

In Facebook v. Windy City Innovations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit earlier today ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erred both in allowing Facebook to join itself to a proceeding in which it was already a party, and in allowing Facebook to add new claims to the inter partes reviews (IPRs) at issue through that joinder…. On the topic of whether the language of § 315(c) authorizes the joinder of a person as a party to a proceeding in which it is already a party, the Court was again clear on what the plain language of § 315(c) allows. The Director is permitted  “to join as a party [to an already instituted IPR] any person’ who meets certain requirements. 35 U.S.C. § 315 (emphases added).”

Unfortunately, some simply cannot help themselves but to use every opportunity – real or imagined – to take a cheap shot at a patent owner for having the audacity to seek to enforce patent rights, so it should come as no surprise that false and misleading reports would surface in the life sciences world relating to the latest coronavirus (named SARS-CoV-2) and the disease it causes (named “coronavirus disease 2019” abbreviated COVID-19). It was only a matter of time. The true story begins in 2018, when Fortress Investment Group acquired the patent assets of Theranos Inc. Fast forward to March 9, 2020, when Labrador Diagnostics LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against BioFire Diagnostics, LLC and bioMerieux S.A., asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,283,155 and U.S. Patent No. 10,533,994, patent assets acquired by Fortress Investment Group from Theranos. This patent infringement lawsuit was not directed to testing for COVID-19, and instead focuses on activities by the defendants over the past six years that are not in any way related to COVID-19 testing.

Subsequently, two days after being sued for infringing the ‘155 patent and the ‘994 patent, on March 11, 2020, bioMerieux announced the forthcoming launch of three different tests “to address the COVID-19 epidemic and to meet the different needs of physicians and health authorities in the fight against this emerging infectious disease.”

With Coronavirus delaying prosecution, preventing courts from empaneling juries, and keeping attorneys home with the kids, you would think filings would have dropped; instead, we saw a slight uptick this week. We saw Elizabeth Holmes’ Theranos patents reemerge, witnessed the start of a battle between in-flight WiFi companies, and even watched sheets of sapphire sold to the government stay hot.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has reversed a district court decision finding certain claims of two patents covering prenatal DNA testing patent ineligible. The CAFC held that “the claimed methods utilize the natural phenomenon that the inventors discovered by employing physical process steps” and thus were patent-eligible. The patents at issue in the case acknowledge but are not related to the patented invention held invalid in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The opinion was authored by Judge Lourie, with Judge Reyna dissenting.

Having attained the title of the world’s second-largest economy, along with a constant influx of innovative companies and massive breakthroughs in digital development, China – often referred to by natives as “Zhongguo” – indubitably ranks among the strongest global tech leaders. While China has lately found itself in arduous times dealing with the dangerous COVID-19 virus, the country’s determination for progress surely hasn’t faltered. Such determination can deliver various results in various forms, and, considering China’s increasing size and global power, protecting intellectual property rights is one of those progressive outcomes.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment in a patent eligibility case, Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc., No. 19-1846 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The ruling affirmed the findings of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that the claims of a a patent for a “method employing a combination of hardware and software for secure, automated entry of real property” were invalid for being directed to an abstract idea and, thus, were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patented method essentially allows a user to enter a “durational” – rather than static – code on a lockbox in order to view a rental property without a realtor being present.