Posts in Patents

The Court believed the time was now appropriate to address this issue through a writ of mandamus noting that several similar cases had now been heard in various district courts with conflicting results. The Court identified two issues that should be addressed: (1) whether a server rack, a shelf, or analogous space can be a “place of business,” and (2) whether a “regular and established place of business” requires the regular presence of an employee or agent of the defendant conducting business. Finding that a defendant must have regular, physical presence of an employee or other agent of the defendant conducting the defendant’s business at the alleged “place of business,” the Court concluded that the Eastern District of Texas was not a proper venue for this case because Google does not have an employee or agent regularly conducting its business within the District.

Last month, we released our first ITC Intelligence Report. For the first time, we ranked ITC law firms and attorneys based on their performance and activity. Our research team analyzed the outcome of 308 ITC Section 337 Investigations, filed from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2019. For all the terminated cases, we identified the outcome (e.g., violation, no violation, settlement, etc.). Then, depending on the outcome and win/loss of parties (i.e., complainants and respondents), we allocated points to each side, including the law firms and attorneys representing them.

The Federal Circuit recently issued an opinion vacating the district court’s grant of summary judgment motions of non-infringement and remanding with instructions to enforce a settlement agreement between Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and Dreamwell, Ltd. (collectively, “Serta Simmons”) and Casper Sleep Inc. (“Casper”). See Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., No. 19-1098, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4467 (Fed Cir.…

On February 21, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a pair of institution-phase decisions in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings petitioned by Internet tech giant Google, both of which challenge claims of a patent owned by Virentem Ventures and asserted in a District of Delaware infringement case against Google subsidiary YouTube. Although the PTAB denied institution to one of the IPRs, institution of the other Google IPR threatens each patent claim that has been asserted against variable speed audio/video playback services enabled by YouTube and Google products. With the IPR proceeding instituted, Virentem Ventures is now facing IPR proceedings instituted upon six of its patents asserted against Google in Delaware.

In IPR 2018-01472, brought by Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and ZTE (USA) Inc. (Apple), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) last week determined all challenged claims of INVT SPE LLC’s (INVT) Patent No. 6,466,563 to be unpatentable as obvious. The ‘563 patent is titled “CDMA [Code Division Multiple Access] Mobile Station and CDMA Transmission Method” and was issued on October 15, 2002. The patent describes an addition of burst data to the end of a transmission “allow[ing] synchronization with the base station apparatus to be maintained,” thus “making it possible to restart communication immediately.” The transmission interval control circuit also “controls the transmission interval of burst data to N times one slot (N: a natural number) at the end of transmission” to conserve power consumption.

When can an inherent property add patentable weight in the context of obviousness? Over the years, the Federal Circuit has shed light on this question in a number of cases. Persion Pharmaceuticals v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., Docket No. 2018-2361 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2019) (Persion v. Alvogen) is the most recent decision to address this question. In Persion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the conclusion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,265,760 (“the ’760 patent”) and 9,339,499 (“the ’499 patent”) are invalid as obvious because the feature at issue was inherent in the prior art.

Inequitable conduct is practically the stuff of ghost stories among patent practitioners. You must satisfy your duty of candor to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the patent – all the claims – will be worthless. Since Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) ushered in the “but-for” materiality standard, some patent practitioners may have become too complacent and willing to take a chance. Who will find out? A recent decision in Deep Fix, LLC v. Marine Well Containment Co. LLC (S.D.Tx. Feb. 18, 2020) may have patent prosecutors reviewing their files and even filing a request for supplemental examination or two.

On February 12, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office entered a notice of intent to issue an ex parte reexamination certificate on a patent owned by Opticurrent, LLC, which will confirm all challenged patent claims without any amendments or changes to the specification and drawings. The USPTO’s notice brings an end to a patent battle in which Opticurrent argued that Power Integrations engaged in some unusual gamesmanship to challenge the validity of patent claims asserted against it in district court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied HZNP Medicines LLC’s (Horizon’s) request for rehearing in HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., with Judges Newman, O’Malley, Stoll and Lourie dissenting. Judge Lourie, writing for the dissent, said that the Court “has erroneously misconstrued the ‘consisting essentially of’ language in evaluating the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112” and that rehearing en banc should have been granted. In October, the CAFC affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s findings of invalidity and noninfringement of certain claims of some of the asserted Horizon patents, as well as the district court’s finding of nonobviousness of one claim of another Horizon patent. Judge Newman dissented in that decision, saying that “The majority’s new ruling sows conflict and confusion” and that it could “cast countless patents into uncertainty.”

The Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc. et. al., a development that VirnetX said in a press release spells “triumph” for the Internet security software company, following a decade long battle. The underlying judgment was delivered in October 2017, when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas increased the amount of damages to be paid by Apple from $302.4 million in a prior jury verdict up to nearly $440 million for Apple’s infringement of patents covering secure communications in applications like FaceTime.

Twenty-two member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), more than 100 organizations, and over 100 individuals have submitted comments and suggestions in response to WIPO’s Draft Issues Paper on IP Policy and AI. The submissions have been posted in the form and in the languages in which they were received on WIPO’s website. The comments will feed into a revised issues paper for discussion at the second session of the WIPO Conversation on IP and AI, which takes place in Geneva in May 2020.

As an independent inventor, I am greatly concerned about the new proposed Section 112(f) wording related to “functional claiming” that was put forward as part of the fix for patent eligibility law. While the bill is on the back burner for now, lawmakers have stated their desire to revive it. In my mind it is part of a continuing effort to prevent inventors of computer-implemented inventions from experiencing smooth sailing in patent prosecution and patent assertion. A description of what computers do and how they “logically” work has a close relationship with its physical structure. These aspects are closely interwoven and largely equivalent. Executing a computer operation means that physical circuits are activated. A computer operation or function is not a disembodied occurrence. An instruction executed by a computer is a rapid configuration/activation of one or more (usually electrical) circuits.

On February 13, 2020, The Niskanen Center, a center-left think tank, published a piece condemning pro-intellectual property voices for what they consider flawed views on intellectual property. In the article, author Daniel Takash explicitly attacks the “unearned moral high ground,” which supporters of IP supposedly occupy. “Supporters of free markets and property rights,” he proclaims, “must stop thinking of the unauthorized use of ideas … as ‘theft.’” Instead, they must “wholesale reject the notion that patents and copyrights are property.” This position is incredibly naïve and demonstrates a profound ignorance of intellectual property and, quite frankly, innovation in general.

On February 13, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in the FTC v. Qualcomm case. Counsel for Qualcomm and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) argued primarily about whether Qualcomm’s behavior resulted in anticompetitive harm, while the attorney from the Department of Justice, which had been granted five minutes to argue on Qualcomm’s behalf, faced tough questions about claims that the district court’s injunction posed a threat to national security. While the DOJ’s intervention in this case is interesting, the best summation of the argument came from the bench when Judge Stephen Murphy, District Court Judge of the Eastern District of Michigan sitting by designation stated: “Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act. Hyper-competitive behavior is not. This case asks us to draw the line between the two.”

This article relates to key practice pointers for making a claim patent-eligible subject matter according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) October 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update (October 2019 PEG Update). The October 2019 PEG Update expands on the January 2019 PEG (Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). In view of the continued denial of cases involving patent subject matter eligibility, such as Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 915 F.3d 743 (Feb. 6, 2019) by the U.S. Supreme Court, patent practitioners and clients alike need to pay more attention to the issued guidance documents and relevant Federal Circuit case law. Accordingly, one needs to have strategies in place for dealing with compliance of patent claims with 35 U.S.C. § 101.