Posts Tagged: "Judge Evan Wallach"

Practitioners dealing with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation should be sure to preserve objections for appeal, since failing to object may lead to a more deferential, plain error standard of review, depending on the applicable circuit law. Further, in seeking a preliminary injunction, evidence of harm from pre-issuance of the asserted patent is relevant to show likelihood of irreparable harm from similar injuries in the future.

The Federal Circuit has found claims to a graphical user interface (GUI) patent to be patent eligible. See Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. The decision of the panel, authored by Judge Newman and joined by Judge O’Malley and Judge Wallach, is noteworthy for several reasons. First, the Court did not believe that their ruling affirming the district court to merit a precedential designation. This would suggest that the panel did not believe the decision would add to the body of precedential law, which would appear to make this an easy case for the panel. Second, the claims that have been found to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 in this “easy decision” are currently under review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a Covered Business Method (CBM) review because the PTAB believed the graphical user interface patent claims are likely patent ineligible.

The Board’s determination was “potentially lawful but insufficiently or inappropriately explained.” The finding of obviousness was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings… Obviousness findings grounded in common sense must contain explicit and clear reasoning that provides some rational underpinning as to why common sense compels such a result.

In appealing from a final IPR decision, the appellant must have standing, based on evidence of record or supplemental evidence showing an “injury in fact.” Alleged economic injury must be specific and proven, and does not arise just from statutory appeal provisions or from IPR litigation estoppel when appellant’s infringement of the challenged patent is not a potential issue.

It is inappropriate for a trial court to discount material expert testimony so as to weigh the evidence in favor of a party seeking summary judgment. The presence of a genuine dispute precludes summary judgment in such cases. … Failure to disclose arguments concerning claims of a different scope in a different patent application was not inequitable conduct when differences were apparent to the Examiner.

Tile Tech argued that a default judgment was not appropriate because the district court did not find that Tile Tech acted in bad faith. However, the Court identified the full test for default, in the Ninth Circuit, as “willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Tile Tech failed to present evidence that its dilatory actions were not its fault, i.e. outside of its attorney’s control. Therefore, the Court upheld the judgment… The Court also found the requirement to surrender “any mold, or other device, by which any [component] utilized with the [patent] was made” an acceptable means of preventing future infringement.

NuVasive owns a patent relating to spinal fusion implants. Medtronic petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) to institute an inter partes review challenging the validity of NuVasive’s patent over several references. The Board instituted the IPR and found the challenged claims obvious over a combination of references.

Earlier today the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC. In deciding to hear this patent venue case the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions… Ultimately, the question that the petitioner really wants the Supreme Court to address is whether the Eastern District of Texas, which is home to 20-25% of all patent litigations because it is perceived to be patent owner friendly, is a proper venue for patent owners to be choosing. If the Supreme Court issues a ruling that strikes down current patent venue rules there would be no need for patent venue reform efforts to continue in Congress. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court were to affirm the Federal Circuit in this case calls for legislative venue reform would likely become deafening.

The Federal Circuit denied appellant SAS’s petition for rehearing en banc from a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, without an explanatory opinion. Judge Newman dissented. Without discussing the facts of the case, she undertook to review the statutory provisions for inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings under the America Invents Act (“AIA”). According to Newman, the Court should have granted the petition, in order to correct the Patent Office position that “the final order of the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board need not address every claim raised in the petition for review.” According to Judge Newman, a review of the statutory provisions of the AIA makes it clear that, if the PTAB decides to institute review, it should do so for all of the challenged claims, not just some of the challenged claims.

The Court found substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding of infringement. While Samsung’s expert offered conflicting testimony, a reasonable jury could have credited Apple’s expert. Thus, there was no error in the district court’s conclusion that substantial evidence supported the jury verdict of infringement… Note that the underlying dispute in this case does not concern design patents that were also asserted against Samsung, and which are currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

This decision reestablishes what should always have been the case; namely that the Federal Circuit is an appellate court that does not consider evidence outside the record or engage in fact finding on their own. The Federal Circuit has been increasingly out of control for years, acting as a trial court and jury rather than an appellate court. Hopefully that will end today.

Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, it is not necessary for an earlier application to explicitly describe the later patent. There is adequate written description to support a later patent where it is undisputed that the invention inherently described in an earlier application was the same subject matter included in the claims of the later patent.

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, lost two cases at the Federal Circuit last week, both in decisions authored by Judge Bryson, which Chief Judge Prost and Judge Wallach joining the opinions. Although the patents at issue in the two cases were different, they shared a similar specification. In the DirecTV decision, the Federal Circuit followed the Alice/Mayo framework and found the claims patent ineligible. Perhaps of note, the Court rebuffed Affinity’s arguments regarding novelty, explaining patent eligibility does not turn on novelty of the claims. In the Amazon decision the Federal Circuit ruled that basic user customization is insufficient to qualify as inventive under Mayo and Alice.

The Court noted that all of Warsaw’s arguments related to the Board’s findings of fact, and were therefore reviewed for “substantial evidence.” The Board’s reconciliation of the potentially conflicting descriptions in the reference amounted to a re-weighing of evidence, which is not permitted under the standard of review. The Court also affirmed the Board’s motivation to combine analysis. Finally the Court summarily rejected Warsaw’s arguments presented for the first time on appeal.

The Court also affirmed that the this means-plus-function term was indefinite. In the case of computer-implemented functions, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. The patents-in-suit did not disclose an operative algorithm for the claimed “symbol generator.” A patentee cannot claim a means for performing a specific function and then disclose a “general purpose computer” as the structure performing that function. The specification must disclose an algorithm in hardware or software for performing the stated function.