Posts Tagged: "Judge Evan Wallach"

Although the majority opinion was silent with respect to a prior claim construction by the Federal Circuit relating to the patent, Judge Newman wrote in dissent that the majority’s failure to address the issue (which was briefed) allowed for a final claim construction by the Federal Circuit to for the first time lack preclusive effect.

Unlike the Board’s anticipation determinations, which contravened the only permissible findings that could be drawn from the prior art under the proper constructions of the relevant claim terms, the obviousness determinations involved “potentially lawful but insufficiently or inappropriately explained” factual findings. In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Board failed to explain its reasoning to allow the Court to determine whether its findings would be lawful. When faced with similarly deficient factual findings, the Court has “consistently vacated and remanded for further proceedings.” Id. Consequently, the Court vacated the Board’s obviousness rejections with respect to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 21, and remanded for further factual findings and explanation on this issue.

Elbit’s expert argued that the asserted claims were obvious because the two-step and three-step methods are “mathematically equivalent” in that the three-step method simply reorders steps employed in the prior art without producing a new or unexpected result. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that Thales’s expert sufficiently explained the differences between the two-step and three-step methods. The panel also agreed with the Board that Elbit’s expert’s testimony was “unsupported” and not entitled to weight because he failed to account for or address the relative angular rate signal limitation in claim 3 anywhere in his opinion.

Turning to the injunction, Infineon was enjoined from undertaking certain activities concerning products in the Exclusive Field that practice the licensed patents. The Court vacated this provision because it lacks the specificity required by FRCP 65(d). The Court found that this sentence of the injunction “is, in essence, an injunction prohibiting infringing acts—but without reference to any particular, adjudicated infringing product,” and “[i]ndeed, no product has yet been adjudicated.”

The Federal Circuit reiterated that the on-sale bar does not exempt commercial agreements between a patentee and its supplier or distributor. It is the commercial character of the transaction that is more relevant than the parties involved when assessing whether there was a commercial offer for sale.

The Federal Circuit found that Actelion was required to make an express request to commence early national stage examination. Actelion’s statement “earnestly soliciting early examination,” which made no reference to § 371(f), the PCT, or the national stage, combined with failure to check the box expressly requesting early examination, was an “inconsistent or ambivalent request.” While Actelion was not required to check any boxes, it was still required to make its intentions clear. Thus, the district court did not err in affirming the PTO’s finding that Actelion failed to make an express request for early examination. The Federal Circuit also found no error in the PTO’s determination that the national stage commenced on January 17, 2012, the next workday after a 30-month date that fell on a federal holiday.

To fall within the safe-harbor protection against obviousness-type double patenting, a patent application must be properly designated as a divisional application before the patent issues. Attempts to retroactively re-designation a CIP application as a divisional does not bring the patent granted from that application within the protection of the safe-harbor, whether or not any benefit was gained from the initial CIP designation.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of LG‘s motion for summary judgment that various claims of Core’s patents were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under Section 101. The Court also affirmed the district court’s denial of LG’s motions for judgment as a matter of law that the claims were anticipated and not infringed… The concept of summarizing information can be patent eligible (not abstract) when specifically applied to improving the efficiency of the electronic device, as in a “particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.”

The Supreme Court will hear WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., which asks whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)… Because lost profits damages were awarded for lost contracts for services to be performed on the high seas, outside of the jurisdiction of U.S. patent law, the Federal Circuit reversed that $93.4 million award… In December 2017, the office of Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae. The Solicitor General argued that WesternGeco’s entitlement to damages should be informed by the traditional common-law rule that a victim of a tort should be returned to the position that victim would have occupied if not for the defendant’s legal wrong.

Exmark Manufacturing was awarded $24 million in compensatory damages after a jury found that Briggs and Stratton infringed Exmark’s patent on a lawn mower with improved flow control baffles. The award was doubled by the court, after a finding that Briggs and Stratton’s infringement was willful. On appeal, Briggs challenged six holdings: (1) summary judgment that claim 1 was not anticipated or obvious; (2) denial of summary judgment that claim 1 is indefinite; (3) denial of a new trial on damages; (4) evidentiary rulings related to damages; (5) denial of a new trial on willfulness; and, (6) denial of Brigg’s laches defense. The Federal Circuit vacated findings of willfulness and the underlying damages award, remanding to the trial court.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of several claims in a patent owned by Monsanto… Extrinsic evidence is permissible to interpret an allegedly anticipating references and to shed light on what it would have meant to a POSA. For purposes of inherent anticipation, recognition is not required within the prior art itself and need not antedate the patent at issue or have contemporaneous recognition by a POSA.

On December 8, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (2016-2442) that provides some useful language to practitioners dealing with patent ineligibility rejections having Alice as their basis… “Like the claims at issue in Mortgage Grader, the [claims at issue] are directed to an ‘economic arrangement’ implemented using ‘generic computer technology.’ These issues were significant, if not determinative, of the Court’s holding in Alice.”

In Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed an award of attorneys’ fees in the lower court because “following the Alice decision, IH’s claims were objectively without merit.”  Alice issued two months after the filing of suit.

The Federal Circuit heard the case of Sanofi v. Watson Labs.. Sanofi is the owner of two patents claiming compositions and uses of the cardiovascular drug dronedarone. The ‘167 patent claims methods of reducing cardiovascular hospitalization by administering dronedarone to patients meeting specific conditions that mirror those of a clinical study conducted by Sanofi between 2005 and 2008 (“ATHENA”). The court held that the asserted claims do not exclude compositions containing polysorbate surfactants. Watson and Sandoz appealed; the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in full.

The Federal Circuit evidences a great deal of myopia to declare that these patents are not directed to a technological advance, even if they can string together citations that seem to support their sterilized findings. Shouldn’t it seem self evident in 2017 that an open payment system for processing fares on a mass transit system is a technological advance? Shouldn’t it also be equally self evident that there is nothing abstract about the tangible device used by a person who is admitted to a subway through an open payment system? And it’s hard to miss the financial reality that the funds actually do change hands and the fare is paid, isn’t it? And while the app itself may be intangible (i.e., not touchable), but the effects on commerce are very real and extremely valuable, in fact one could argue that the effects on commerce are so significant that they are enabling. By and through this innovation commerce is enabled in an efficient and transparent manner through an immediate arms length negotiation in real time. Of course it should be self evident in the digital age we find ourselves in in this 21st century economy that such an immediately enabled commercial transaction is anything but abstract, such transactions make the entire marketplace work. Indeed, so significant was this technology that Chicago Transit is paying an infringer for the service.