Posts Tagged: "Judge Kara Stoll"

In Lyons v. American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) cancellation of Sheila Lyons’s registration of the service mark, THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SPORTS MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION (“the mark”) on the Supplemental Register on the grounds that she does not own the mark… Ownership of a service mark, as between a group and a departing member, depends on the objective intentions and expectations of the parties and on who the public associates with the mark and stands behind the quality of services offered under the mark.

In the case of Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of summary judgment for Apple Inc. (“Apple”). The Court held that statements made by a patent owner during an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding, whether before or after an institution decision, can be relied upon to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer… To invoke prosecution disclaimer, the statements must constitute a clear and unmistakable surrender of claim scope. If a prosecution argument is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it cannot rise to the level of a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.

Appellant Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Affinity”) appealed from the inter partes reexamination of its patent filed by Apple Inc. (“Apple”). Apple requested reexamination after Affinity asserted the patent against Apple in district court. The parties settled their dispute and filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with the district court… The estoppel provision of Pre-AIA Section 317(b), as applied to Inter Partes Reexamination, requires a “Final Decision,” which must show that the estopped party has not sustained its burden of proving invalidity of any patent claim in suit. Thus, a joint stipulation and order of dismissal “without prejudice” did not bar the maintenance of the Inter Partes Reexamination.

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision to uphold the unpatentability of several claims of a patent owned by Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC (“Affinity”). An Examiner initially found the claims to be unpatentable during two inter partes reexaminations and an ex parte reexamination of Affinity’s patent…. The estoppel provision of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) for reexamination proceedings applies, claim-by-claim, to the party in the litigation, and does not trigger termination of reexamination proceedings involving other parties and other claims.

In RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that RecogniCorp’s patent claims are directed to an abstract idea, and do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to make them patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101… Adding one abstract idea, such as math, to another abstract idea, such as encoding- decoding, does not make the claim non-abstract. A claim containing a mathematical formula can satisfy § 101 when it applies the formula in a structure or process which, as a whole, is performing a non-abstract function that the patent laws were designed to protect. Under Alice step two, a claim that is directed to a non-abstract idea is not rendered abstract simply because it uses a mathematical formula. However, the reverse is also true: A claim directed to an abstract idea does not automatically become patent eligible by adding a mathematical formula. The elements of the claim must be examined to determine whether there is an inventive concept beyond the addition of a mathematical formula, e.g. to be implemented on a computer. The claims must make it clear how the invention improves a specific technology, rather than simply stating to an abstract end-result.

Nichia Corporation (“Nichia”) sued Everlight Americas, Inc., Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. and Zenaro Lighting (collectively, “Everlight”) for infringement of three of Nichia’s patents disclosing packaging designs and methods of manufacturing LED devices. Following a bench trial, the district court found that Everlight infringed all three patents and failed to prove the patents invalid. The district court denied Nichia’s request for a permanent injunction. Nichia appealed the district court’s refusal to enter a permanent injunction, and Everlight cross-appealed the district court’s infringement and validity findings. The Court affirmed on all grounds.

The Federal Circuit held that the claim was directed to the abstract idea of encoding and decoding image data. According to the panel, the claim recited “a method whereby a user displays images on a first display, assigns image codes to the images through an interface using a mathematical formula, and then reproduces the image based on the codes… This method reflects standard encoding and decoding, an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information.” The Federal Circuit went on to note under step one that RecogniCorp’s Claim 1 differed from the invention in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) because, unlike Enfish’s invention, Claim 1 did not recite a software method that improved the functioning of a computer but instead recited a process “for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding a patent owned by Novartis AG and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. (collectively “Novartis”) to be unpatentable as obvious… Refusal by the Board to institute an IPR based on a particular reference does not necessarily preclude the Board from relying on that reference as additional support for a motivation to combine other references. Separate patentability arguments for dependent claims must be clearly argued lest they stand or fall with parent claims. A nexus for non-obviousness due to commercial success must clearly flow from the patented invention and not from subject matter known in the prior art.

On appeal, Novartis argued that the PTAB unlawfully reached different conclusions than the Federal Circuit and U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in addressing the “same” arguments and the “same” evidence… The Court stated that “Novartis’s argument fails on factual and legal grounds.” First, the record in front of the PTAB differed from that of the prior litigation, meaning that Novartis’ argument rests on a “faulty factual predicate.”… “Nevertheless, even if the record were the same, Novartis’s argument would fail as a matter of law.” The PTAB reviews patentability under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). District court litigation requires “clear and convincing” evidence. Therefore, “the PTAB may properly reach a different conclusion based on the same evidence.”

Patent claims being adjudicated valid in federal district court and then being killed in an administrative proceeding at the PTAB is exactly the problem so many of us saw coming. Time and time again throughout the debates in Congress, and all through the legislative history, post grant proceedings were explained as being a faster, low-cost alternative to litigating validity disputes in Federal District Court. That was just a lie. Post grant proceedings at the PTAB are not cheap, and they are not an alternative to district court proceedings. The PTAB is duplicative and anti-patent. In fact, because of the different standards used between district courts and the PTAB, and because district courts presume patents are valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 282, different outcomes are practically inevitable.

The Federal Circuit noted that precedent requires a prior art reference to disclose the invention without modification in order to anticipate. “[A] prior art reference that must be distorted from its obvious design does not anticipate a patent claim.” The Court applied that principle here and found that the first reference (Rambert) would only anticipate if one of its elements was removed. The Board failed to explain the removal of that element. The second reference (Bouttens) also required “significant and impermissible modification,” which was also unexplained. Consequently, the Board’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence.

In conclusion, the Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that, under the totality of circumstances, this was an exceptional case, and affirmed the district court’s grant of § 285 fees… The Supreme Court’s totality of the circumstances analysis for fees under § 285 is a “holistic and equitable approach in which a district court may base its discretionary decision on other factors, including the litigant’s unreasonableness in litigating the case, subjective bad faith, frivolousness, motivation, and ‘the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.’”

Various Synopsys parties and EVE-USA, Inc. (collectively “Synopsys”) sued Mentor Graphics, seeking a declaration that Mentor’s ’376, ’531, and ’176 patents were invalid and not infringed. Mentor counterclaimed for willful infringement of those three patents, and also asserted infringement of two more (the ’526 and ’109 patents). The court consolidated the case with another involving a fourth patent owned by Mentor (the ’882 patent)… A jury does not have to further apportion lost profits to patented features of a larger product after applying the Panduit factors, which implicitly incorporate apportionment into the lost profit award. Claim preclusion applies when a claim was asserted, or could have been asserted, in a prior action. It does not bar allegations that did not exist at the time of the earlier action.

The PTAB agreed with Apple and invalidated the patent. The Federal Circuit remanded because the Board failed to adequately explain its finding that a skilled artisan would have had a motivation to combine the references used to find obviousness… IPR practitioners should brief the Board with explicit reasoning why a skilled artisan not only could (or could not), but would (or would not) be motivated to combine the asserted references, and how those references work together (or do not).

A preliminary injunction was appropriate when non-infringement depended on an erroneous claim construction; the evidence did not show the proposed combination of references for non-obviousness was enabled; irreparable harm was likely despite other competition, and the injunction tipped in favor of the public interest… The Court held that the fact that other infringers may be in the marketplace does not negate irreparable harm. It also held that the loss by Scag of customers may have far-reaching, long-term impact on its future revenues, and the sales lost by Scag are difficult to quantify due to “ecosystem effects,” where one company’s customers will continue to buy that company’s products and recommend them to others.