Posts Tagged: "patent infringement"

Amneal, Aided by FTC, Succeeds in Getting Teva Patents Removed from Orange Book

In a significant ruling, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has ordered that Teva’s inhaler patents were improperly listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book, supporting Amneal’s claims that the patents did not cover key drug formulations. The case is centered around Teva’s New Drug Application (NDA) for the ProAir HFA inhaler.

TikTok’s ‘Grossly Insufficient’ Discovery Responses Lead to Motion to Compel in Cellspin Soft Patent Case

On June 6, patent owner Cellspin Soft filed a motion to compel  in the Eastern District of Texas seeking a court order requiring Chinese social media company TikTok to provide additional responses to interrogatories regarding proper venue in the case. Cellspin Soft’s motion charges TikTok with refusing to provide information within the company’s knowledge about several venue-related aspects of the case, including the identity of corporate whistleblowers and the location of servers used by TikTok’s data security initiative known as Project Texas.

Prost Dissents from CAFC’s Denial of New Trial on Damages for Google

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday, June 3, issued a precedential decision affirming a district court’s orders in favor of EcoFactor, Inc. against Google, whose appeal in part asked for a new trial on damages due to prejudicial error. Judge Prost dissented-in-part. EcoFactor sued Google for infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 8,738,327 relating to smart thermostat technology. EcoFactor said Google’s Nest thermostat products in particular were infringing. Google moved for summary judgment that certain claims of the patent were invalid as abstract under Section 101 but the district court denied the motion, and also denied Google’s Daubert motion to exclude the opinion of EcoFactor’s damages expert, Mr. Kennedy, whose testimony Google argued was “unreliable and therefore prejudicial,” according to the CAFC.

Impact of Full Federal Circuit’s Design Patent Decision is Far from Obvious

Applications for design patents have surged in recent years, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reporting a 20% increase in applications over the last five years. Design patents have become an important tool in brands’ intellectual property portfolios – and for good reason: where trade dress protection can take years (and significant resources) to acquire, with the right planning and timing, design patents are easy to obtain and offer strong protections for brands.

CAFC Vacates Win for Nokia on Standing Issue

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday, May 21, issued a precedential decision vacating and remanding a district court’s finding that Core Optical Technologies didn’t have standing to sue Nokia due to the language of a contract between the inventor and his employer. Judge Mayer dissented. Core Optical alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,782,211 by Nokia Corp., ADVA Optical Networking SE, and Cisco Systems, Inc. (Nokia). Nokia moved for summary judgment arguing that Core Optical lacked standing to sue because the inventor named on the patent, Dr. Mark Core, had already assigned the invention to his employer, TRW, Inc., where he worked at the time of the invention.

CAFC Says IPRs are Voluntary, Fees Not Recoverable Under ‘Exceptionality’ Rule

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday, May 20, said in a precedential decision that fees incurred during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings are not recoverable under the “exceptionality” rule of 35 U.S.C. § 285. The court also rejected Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC’s argument that the case should not qualify as exceptional and rejected DISH Network, LLC’s argument that Dragon’s counsel should be held jointly and severally liable for the award of attorneys’ fees.

Panelists Push for Predictability at IPWatchdog’s 2024 Patent Litigation Masters Program

“Make it happen.” That was the request U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman made of attendees of IPWatchdog’s Patent Litigation Masters 2024 program on Monday, imploring them to “think creatively” to solve the intellectual property problems of today. Pointing to developments such as the Unified Patent Court (UPC), Newman said “it’s a time of change and flux, and we can learn a good deal, not only from the UPC, but the way the law is developing in jurisdictions like Japan and China.”

Why IP Rights Expire and Why They Must Be Strong While They Last

Imagine building a house and by law, 20 years from completion, all ownership rights to the asset expired permanently whether retained by the original owner or obtained through purchase. Notwithstanding rising real estate values, the ability to reap the benefit of that asset’s appreciation would decrease rapidly for every year the property was owned. After 20 years, as the house passed into the public domain, you might continue to live there, but its investment or resale value would effectively become zero. This is the reality for intellectual property rights, which are time-limited by law, a condition established by the U.S. Constitution.

Potential Shifts in Section 337 Precedent: What The Data Tells Us

The U.S. International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) is typically made up of six individual commissioners, but after Commissioner Randolph Stayin’s unexpected return to private practice last year, there are now just four. As a result, upcoming changes to the make-up of the Commission may cause a shift in the Commission’s positions on various legal issues. What happens next is anyone’s guess, but a careful analysis of Commission opinions can help unearth possible future changes in precedent.

CAFC Affirms ITC View on Aggregation of Domestic Industry Costs for Disparate Patents

On May 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in Zircon Corp. v. International Trade Commission affirming the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) ruling that Zircon Corp. had failed to meet the domestic industry requirement to prove a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 due to Stanley Black & Decker’s alleged patent infringement. The Federal Circuit agreed with the ITC that Zircon had failed to provide an adequate basis for evaluating its domestic industry investments by aggregating its investments into products that practiced fewer than all patents asserted by Zircon in the ITC’s Section 337 investigation.

G+ Communications v. Samsung: The Perils of Being ‘Half-Committed’ to FRAND

Earlier this year, a jury trial was held in the matter of G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No: 2:22-CV-00078-JRG (E.D. Texas). Pursuant to the jury’s verdict, two of the three patents asserted were found to be infringed by Samsung, and compensation was awarded to G+ in the amount of $45 million for one patent and $22.5 million for the other. The verdict further indicated these amounts were running royalties as opposed to lump sum royalties. Additionally, the jury found G+ had not “breached its [fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory] FRAND obligation by failing to offer a license to the Asserted Patents to Samsung that was fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, and by failing to act in good faith regarding negotiations with Samsung as to a FRAND license covering the Asserted Patents.”

Outsourcing Patent Enforcement: You May Get What You Pay For

Intellectual property litigation in the 21st century has brought to the fore systems for asserting infringement in which IP owners may be spared some of the huge expense of litigation by “routing” extra-judicial enforcement activities through a third party. They may do so by availing themselves of programs operated by middlemen such as Amazon, which can potentially cripple a competitor with the threat of removal from Amazon.com, while the patentee can claim to be immune from a declaratory judgment suit on the accused infringer’s home turf.

CAFC Reverses Dismissal of Declaratory Judgment Suit Linked to Amazon’s APEX Program

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a district court’s decision in Snaprays (dba SnapPower), v. Light Defense Group (LDG) on May 2, finding that Lighting Defense Group (LDG) purposefully directed extra-judicial patent enforcement activities at SnapPower in Utah. The opinion was authored by CAFC Chief Judge Moore.

CAFC Vacates Enhanced Damages Judgment Due to Preclusive Effect of Intervening PTAB Decisions

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today vacating and remanding with instructions to dismiss as moot a district court final judgment that granted enhanced damages for willful infringement to Packet Intelligence LLC. The appeal was brought by NetScout Systems, Inc. against Packet and relates to a co-pending case in which the CAFC today affirmed several decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding all challenged claims of four of Packet’s patents unpatentable as obvious.

GSK Says Pfizer Infringed Five Patents Relating to Comirnaty COVID Vaccine

GlaxoSmithKline filed a four-count civil action for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware late last week seeking damages for Pfizer and BioNTech’s infringing manufacture, use, sale and marketing of both the original “monovalent” and “bivalent” Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccines. The COVID-19 vaccine was quickly rolled out compared to other vaccines in the past and many pharmaceutical companies benefited financially. However, GSK contends their competitors, Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC (collectively Pfizer) and BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GMBH and BioNTech US Inc. (collectively BioNTech) developed their vaccines with GSK’s patented inventions created about a decade earlier.