Posts Tagged: "CAFC"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential opinion today affirmed a district court’s judgment that AT&T Mobility LLC did not infringe an inventor’s wireless communications technology patent but held that AT&T had forfeited its chance to prove the patent is invalid on appeal. Joe Salazar’s U.S. Patent No. 5,802,467 is titled, “Wireless and Wired Communications, Command, Control and Sensing System for Sound And/or Data Transmission and Reception.” After unsuccessfully suing HTC Corp. for infringement in 2016, Salazar sued HTC’s customers, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, in 2019, alleging certain phones sold by the companies infringed his patent. A jury ultimately found that the companies did not infringe but that the patent was not invalid as anticipated.

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed in part a district court ruling that found video game company Valve willfully infringed Ironburg’s U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525. However, the CAFC judges ruled that the district court erred when it estopped Valve from raising several grounds that were not the subject of its partially-instituted inter partes review (IPR) petition against Ironburg. Judge Clevenger dissented. A jury levied Valve with $4 million in damages, a sum that Ironburg argued should be enhanced. The district court did not grant enhanced damages, found that the two challenged claim terms were not indefinite, said the claims were willfully infringed, held that Valve was estopped from litigating the prior art grounds on which IPR was requested but not instituted, and also held that Valve was estopped from litigating later-discovered invalidity grounds. The CAFC affirmed all but the latter holding, explaining that the later-discovered prior art that was not part of the IPR petition must be held to a “skilled searcher” standard that it is the burden of the patent holder to prove is subject to IPR estoppel.

On March 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Philip Morris Products S.A. v. International Trade Commission affirming a Section 337 ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that blocked the importation and sale of electronic vape tobacco products infringing patents owned by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company. While much of the precedential decision deals with Philip Morris’ procedural and agency challenges to the ITC’s ruling, the Federal Circuit also rejected arguments that several patentability findings entered by the ITC were not supported by substantial evidence. The present appeal stems back to an ITC complaint filed by R.J. Reynolds in April 2020 seeking a Section 337 investigation into Philip Morris’ IQOS line of heat-not-burn tobacco vaping products. The two patents asserted by R.J. Reynolds are U.S. Patent No. 9901123, Tobacco-Containing Smoking Article, and U.S. Patent No. 9930915, Smoking Articles and Use Thereof for Yielding Inhalation Materials. After a yearlong investigation, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the accused IQOS products infringed claims of both patents, that R.J. Reynolds established the existence of a domestic industry with respect to both patents, and that the public interest did not weigh against entry of a limited exclusion order (LEO).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday issued a precedential decision holding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) correctly found Roku, Inc. had failed to prove the challenged claims of Universal Electronics, Inc.’s patent obvious. Judge Stoll authored the majority opinion and Judge Newman dissented, citing both procedural and substantive problems with the majority’s analysis. The decision relates to Universal Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853, which generally is directed to universal remote controls. Specifically, the patent describes “a universal control engine (UCE) that facilitates communication between a controlling device (i.e., a remote) and intended target appliances.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday upheld two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions finding VirnetX’s patent claims unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) challenges brought by Apple, Inc. and Mangrove Partners. The dispute relates to VirnetX’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 and 7,490,151, which are directed to a “secure mechanism for communicating over the internet.” Mangrove Partners challenged several claims of the ‘135 patent at the PTAB, alleging they were anticipated by a 1996 article authored by Kiuchi and Kaihara

The U.S. Solicitor General on Wednesday filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court advising it to grant Teva Pharmaceuticals’ petition for writ of certiorari relating to generic manufacturers’ liability for infringement through the use of “skinny labels” on generic drugs. The SG’s brief said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) got it wrong, and that the decision could upend the careful balance contemplated by the Hatch-Waxman Amendments between incentivizing new brand name drugs and allowing cheaper generics into the market.

As an update to my previous posts from 2017, 2019, 2020, March 2021, August 2021, and 2022, it has now been almost nine years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision. Yet the debate still rages over when a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none” (as eloquently phrased over 74 years ago by then-Supreme Court Justice Douglas in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.). Further, it has been 12 years since famed venture capitalist Marc Andreessen wrote the influential and often-quoted op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal titled “Why Software Is Eating the World.” Today, the digital transformation where software is “eating the world” is undeniable. Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Metaverse, Web3, cloud, gene editing, autonomous driving, quantum computing, and “green tech” dominate the technology news headlines and technology trend forecasts – all heavily reliant on software-related innovation – [Forbes] [Gartner] [World Economic Forum], but we are still without concrete guidelines for software-related patenting.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard three separate arguments today in Amgen v. Sanofi, a case that even Sanofi’s counsel agreed could effectively wipe out patents involving genus claims if the Court sides with Sanofi, or—as counsel for Sanofi and the Solicitor General’s Office suggested the Court could do—if it were to dismiss the case as improvidently granted.

Last week, cyber threat intelligence firm Centripetal Networks filed a petition  with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking mandamus relief from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) “extraordinary departure from basic elements of due process” during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging Centripetal’s patent claims. If left unremedied, Centripetal argues to the Federal Circuit that its own treatment at the hands of the PTAB “sen[ds] a message to the entire patent bar: Any attempt to hold APJs to standards comparable to those of Article III judges [will] be met with sanctions.”

On Monday, March 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Amgen v. Sanofi, a case with the parties and 27 Amici, including the United States, weighing in on whether and how the Court should address the enablement requirement of Section 112 in the context of genus claims, and in particular, genus claims to antibodies in the pharmaceutical sciences. Depending on how the court focuses its analysis, the opinion could be as narrow as how the jury instruction should read for pharmaceutical antibody claims written in the form of “a binding site plus a function.” But some of the briefs invite the court to loosen the constraints of Section 112 by eliminating the requirement of enablement of the “full scope” of the claimed embodiments in favor of a test focused on the “make and use the invention” language in the statute without the “full scope of the claimed embodiments” language the courts have used for years, with implications not just for pharma but for any art that uses functional or genus claiming.

On March 9, e-commerce company Ingenio Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to take up an appeal of a decision last August by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of patent owner Click-to-Call Technologies. Ingenio’s petition asks the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Ingenio was estopped from challenging the validity of patent claims that were denied institution during inter partes review (IPR) validity proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

There was a slight uptick in district court filings last week after a slow January and February, with 43 new patent filings, including a design patent battle involving tumblers and multiple filings indicating an association with high-volume plaintiffs such as Jeffrey Gross and Leigh Rothschild. It was a busy week at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with over 32 new challenges last week, with only one procedural denial on an institution decision—but that was not based on discretionary denial, which remains often briefed but rarely successful for the time being. Of course, the big news this week was that the Federal Circuit has revived an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the Fintiv decision on discretionary denial itself as arbitrary agency action that skirted proper procedure and had an outsized impact on a broad swath of cases.

On March 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG reversing a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found Intel had failed to show that PACT’s patent claims were invalid for obviousness. In reversing, the Federal Circuit ruled that the PTAB improperly rejected Intel’s “known technique” rationale supporting a motivation to combine prior art references under the flexible analysis set out by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2007 obviousness ruling in KSR v. Teleflex.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling Monday that vacated and remanded a district court ruling on patent infringement in a case between Amazon and AlterWAN. The circuit judges vacated the ruling, which found Amazon did not infringe on two AlterWAN patents for internet network technology. Based on two of the district court’s claim constructions, the parties entered into a stipulation of non-infringement; however, AlterWAN appealed the case and contested the district court’s construction of two terms relevant to the patent claims. The CAFC found the stipulation to be vague and lacking detail, and thus vacated the ruling and sent it back to the district court.

As James Madison once said, “Our First Amendment freedoms give us the right to think what we like and say what we please. And if we the People are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights, even if they are misused by a minority.” Not often do such lofty constitutional principles intersect with patent litigation. But the Federal Circuit’s decision in Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital, LLC, No. 2023-1146 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2023), upholds strong free speech rights for patent holders. The case deals with an issue of frequent concern for both outside and in-house patent counsel: how much can (or should) be said in the marketplace about a patent dispute?