Posts in Litigation

One day before the now-famous Arthrex decision was issued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decided an appeal by Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC and Universita Degli Studi Di Cagliari (collectively “Idenix”) against Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead) that reiterates the extent to which the Court is split in its approach to so many issues. The precedential opinion was authored by Chief Judge Prost, with Judge Newman dissenting. In 2013, Idenix sued Gilead for infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,608,597 (the ‘597 patent), which claims a drug directed to the treatment of the hepatitis C virus (HCV). In response, Gilead argued that the ‘597 patent was invalid for failure to meet the written description and enablement requirements. At trial, the jury found for Idenix and upheld the validity of the patent. Gilead filed a renewed motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) on the written description and enablement requirements, and the court granted the motion only on enablement grounds, thus holding the patent invalid. The decision overturned the jury’s award to Idenix of $2.5 billion.

Recent multi million-dollar jury verdicts on trade secret misappropriation claims reflect that there can be significant risk to companies when employees leave or joint development relationships dissolve. Coupled with the passage of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, which created a federal civil cause of action for such claims, these verdicts have heightened the need to refine intellectual property protection strategies. But even with greater attention paid to improving protection measures, litigation can be inevitable, and such cases, as demonstrated by a recent survey conducted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), can be expensive. Companies should consider whether insurance coverage is available to cover litigation costs. In this article we examine a sampling of cases where coverage questions were raised in connection with intellectual property disputes and the differing outcomes which ensued.

November 1 was the deadline for filing amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is considering whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari to take up Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Almost every amicus filing to the Supreme Court in this case supported granting the petition or backed up the position of petitioner Athena, who is asking the Supreme Court to clarify its patent-eligibility doctrine under the Alice/Mayo framework on the subject of medical diagnostic patent claims. The appeal to the Supreme Court follows a hotly contested denial of an en banc rehearing of the Federal Circuit’s original panel decision in Athena, which produced eight opinions, including four dissents, with many judges agreeing that Athena’s invention should be patent eligible even while they disagreed over whether Supreme Court precedent allowed for patent protection of diagnostic methods.

This week in our nation’s capital, the U.S. Senate is the lone house of Congress that will host hearings on tech and innovation topics. On Tuesday, Senate subcommittees will explore national security concerns related to big tech use of user data along with NASA’s efforts to improve the STEM workforce. On Wednesday, a few legislative hearings will commence to look at bills related to government AI, cybersecurity and geothermal innovation, among other tech subjects. Elsewhere in D.C., the Center for International and Strategic Studies explores the future of the electrical grid and China’s efforts towards techno-governance.

On November 1, Meredith Addy of AddyHart P.C. and I submitted an Amici Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Freenome Holdings and New Cures for Cancers in support of the Petition for Certiorari in Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services. If the Supreme Court does not take this case, it is unlikely to reconsider its decisions on Section 101 of the U.S. patent law. This may be our last gasp judicial effort. The Supreme Court takes cases raising inconsistencies in the law or a circuit split. We knew parties/amici would focus on the Federal Circuit’s “internal circuit split,” so we took a different approach and urged the Court to resolve five critical inconsistencies in the law, summarized below.

On October 22, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 410-6, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (the “CASE Act”). The Act proposes to set up what is in essence a voluntary administrative procedure conducted in the U.S. Copyright Office whereby artists and other copyright holders can protect their copyrights without the cost, expense and difficulty associated with filing a full-blown copyright infringement litigation in federal court. Based on the vote in the House, the CASE Act appears to enjoy widespread, bipartisan support in Congress—a rarity these days, to be sure. The appeal is simple: give individual artists and small companies an affordable mechanism to enforce their rights in their creative works. But although the political appeal of the CASE Act is obvious, the practical reality of the CASE Act is something entirely different. Indeed, there are three gaping holes in the CASE Act which may cause the small claims process it sets forth to have only very narrow appeal and to be an effective dispute resolution mechanism in only a narrow subset of cases.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. generated excitement late last week, when many initially speculated that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) would not be able to continue operations as usual in light of the ruling. However, now that the dust has settled, it seems more likely that the effects of Arthrex will be limited to a small subset of cases. While he could not comment on next steps directly as it is a pending matter, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu suggested during a panel at the John Marshall Law School’s 63rd IP Conference in Chicago on Friday that the Office would not be significantly burdened by the decision. USPTO guidance is likely to be issued soon. Of course, the decision has not done much to bolster the already shaky reputation of the PTAB or its Administrative Patent Judges with some, and there are several scenarios in which the Federal Circuit’s quick fix to avoid shutting down the Board entirely might be challenged. Below are some early reactions to the ruling and predictions about how it may play out. 

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit hands out three precedential decisions; the USPTO sends its SUCCESS Act Report to Congress; the Copyright Royalty Board proposes royalty rates on ephemeral recordings for certain Internet transmissions; China unveils legislation to create a public blacklist for patent offenders; the Ninth Circuit revives a copyright case against Taylor Swift’s “Shake It Off”; Google agrees to buy Fitbit for $2.1 billion; and the USPTO seeks public comments on the type of IP protections that should be extended to inventions developed by AI technology.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Moore, has ruled that the current statutory scheme for appointing Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution as it makes APJs principal officers. APJs are presently appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, but principal officers must be appointed by the U.S. President under the Constitution, Article II, § 2, cl. 2. To remedy this, the statutory removal provisions that are presently applied to APJs must be severed so that the Secretary of Commerce has the power to remove APJs without cause, said the Court. Dismissing the government’s and appellees’ arguments that the Appointments Clause issue had been waived by the appellant, Arthrex, Inc., because Arthrex had not raised the issue with the PTAB, the Federal Circuit said that “this is an issue of exceptional importance, and we conclude it is an appropriate use of our discretion to decide the issue over a challenge of waiver.”

Dismissing the government’s and appellees’ arguments that the Appointments Clause issue had been waived by the appellant, Arthrex, Inc., because Arthrex had not raised the issue with the PTAB, the Federal Circuit said that “this is an issue of exceptional importance, and we conclude it is an appropriate use of our discretion to decide the issue over a challenge of waiver.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided on October 3 to affirm the ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware that the asserted claims of U.S. patent number 7,774,911 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under Section101. Much has been written about the majority and dissenting opinions. Here, we concentrate on what the patent practitioner can do when drafting a patent application in light of the case. Whether one personally agrees or disagrees with the court ruling, and there are interesting comments in the dissent about both claim limitations and legal principles, the lessons from the court ruling are clear.

Just two months after the end of her second copyright infringement lawsuit, fashion model Jelena Noura “Gigi” Hadid was sued for a third time, on September 13, for copyright infringement for posting paparazzi photos to her social media accounts without the license or permission of the photographer. Other celebrities, including Jennifer Lopez, Victoria Beckham and, most recently, Justin Bieber, have made news for the same situation. This trend falls into an interesting intersection of two significant tenets of law: a celebrity’s right of publicity in their own image and a photographer’s right to copyright their artistic work.

Trading Technologies International, Inc. (TT) has filed a second petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review a Federal Circuit holding that computer-implemented inventions that do not improve the basic functions of the computer itself are directed to abstract ideas and therefore patent ineligible. The present petition relates to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,685,055 (the “’055 patent”); 7,693,768 (the “’768 patent”); and 7,725,382 (the “’382 patent”). The petition TT filed in September relates to Patent Nos. 7,533,056, 7,212,999, and 7,904,374. The patents are all from the same family as three other patents found patent eligible by the CAFC in 2017. The latest petition argues that the Federal Circuit “simply declined to address conflicting Federal Circuit authority involving the same patent family or the line of other Federal Circuit decisions adopting and applying that authority’s reasoning,” and, therefore, clarification is needed from the High Court. The company’s argument may also get a boost from another petition filed recently appealing the controversial decision in ChargePoint v. Semaconnect, in which the Federal Circuit held that a vehicle charging station was not patent eligible.

Patent investigations at the International Trade Commission (ITC) have been on an upward trend in the last few years. In 2018, the most recent year with complete data, 74 new complaints were filed and there were 130 active investigations, compared to the 117 active investigations in 2017. The trend appears to be continuing in 2019. In today’s global economy, with so many types of products and components being imported into the United States, a rise in patent investigations means that a large number of U.S. companies and their customers are at risk of having their supply chain disrupted. This can result in a potential loss of income, breached contracts, disgruntled customers and general uncertainty regarding the future.

A professor is entitled to a payment of £2 million (about $2.5 million) from his former employer due to the “outstanding benefit” from his invention, the UK Supreme Court has ruled. The judgment was handed down on October 23, eight months after the Court heard the case and some 37 years after the invention was conceived. Cases over outstanding benefit in the UK are rare, and the amounts involved relatively small. But this decision by the Supreme Court may embolden inventors to bring more applications for compensation, given the clarification of what constitutes “outstanding benefit,” particularly in the context of large, diverse businesses.

On October 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Google failed to meet its burden of establishing that Koninklijke Philips’ patent claims at issue were unpatentable on either of two grounds: 1) anticipation by Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) International Application Publication No. 98/52187 (the Tucker invention), or 2) obviousness over Tucker in view of the prior art. n 2016, Google petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for inter partes review (IPR) of Claims 10-16 and 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,114 (the ’114 patent) owned by Philips, entitled “High Frequency and Low Frequency Audio Signal Encoding and Decoding System.” In 2018, the PTAB issued a final written decision holding that Google had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 10-16, 20, and 21 of the ‘114 patent were unpatentable.