Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

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.’”

Anticipation can arise when the disclosure of a limited number of alternative combinations discloses the one that is claimed. However, a reference does not anticipate because an artisan would immediately envision a missing limitation… In Kennametal, the challenged claim required a ruthenium binding agent and a PVD coating to be used together. The prior art reference disclosed five binding agents (including ruthenium) and three coating techniques (including PVD), and taught that any binding agents could be used with any coatings. Thus, Kennametal held that the reference effectively taught fifteen combinations, one of which anticipated the challenged claim. A limited number of possible combinations effectively disclosed one of them. Kennametal does not hold that a reference can anticipate a claim if a skilled artisan would “at once envisage” the missing limitation. As a result, the Court reversed the Board’s finding of anticipation.

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 fact that laches cannot be used as a defense to a patent infringement action brought during the statute of limitations is most definitely a pro-patent decision. Presently patents are much weaker than they have been at any time over the last 36 years. But patent law has always swung like a pendulum, and this low point will not last forever. Thus, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in SCA Hygiene, patent owners would do well to consider forgoing patent enforcement. Instead, allow infringement to accrue and then sue for infringement in several years when the law may be quite a bit more favorable. After all, patents can last for 20 years, the statute of limitations is six-years, and without a laches defense available to infringers you will be able to seek damages going back six years from whenever you choose to sue.

On Tuesday, March 21st, a pre-trial hearing will take place in a case involving patent infringement claims targeting the sale of mice having mutated genes which make them useful for research into Alzheimer’s disease… The original complaint filed in University of South Florida Board of Trustees v. The Jackson Laboratory, which is in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.), asserts a single patent: U.S. Patent No. 5898094, entitled Transgenic Mice Expressing APPK670N, M671L and a Mutant Presenilin Transgenes. Issued in April 1999, it protects a transgenic mouse with enhanced Alzheimer’s disease-related amyloid accumulation in its brain produced by selecting the offspring of two mice, one expressing the mutant presenilin encoded in its genes and the other expressing the APPK670N, M671L genetic sequence; this results in a mouse that develops accelerated deposition of amyloid beta in a period of weeks rather than nine months.

On March 21, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments for the case of Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. The Court will decide: (i) whether the patent exhaustion doctrine applies in instances where a patented article is sold by the patent holder subject to a lawful and clearly communicated post-sale restriction; and (ii) whether the foreign sale of a U.S. patented article, authorized by the patent holder, exhausts the patent holder’s U.S. patent rights in that article.

Waymo’s suit includes counts of infringement for each of the four patents asserted in the case. The suit also includes counts for violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and state claims for violations of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act. Waymo is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages for patent infringement including trebled damages for infringement of the ‘922, ‘464 and ‘273 patents and punitive damages among other forms of relief.

Michael Meiresonne (“Meiresonne”) appealed from the final inter partes review (“IPR”) decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). The Board held that certain claims of the underlying patent were unpatentable as obvious… The Court stated that neither prior art reference said or implied that combining their teachings, especially for the “rollover viewing area” would be “‘unreliable,’ ‘misleading,’ ‘wrong,’ or ‘inaccurate,’ and which might lead one of ordinary skill in the art to discard” the combination. Thus, the references did not discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from making the combination.

The Federal Circuit affirmed a jury award of $7.5 million for Sprint’s infringement of three Comcast patents. The district court did not error in construing the challenged claims, there was sufficient evidence to support both the jury’s verdict and the award of prejudgment interest.

Broadcom Ltd. filed a series of six lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging the infringement of a series of patents covering semiconductor technologies. The patent lawsuits target firms making and selling consumer audiovisual products or other articles which utilize system on a chip (SoC) semiconductors and similar processing equipment… Although most of the Broadcom suits assert multiple patents, there is only one patent asserted in each case: U.S. Patent No. 7,310,104, titled Graphics Display System with Anti-Flutter Filtering and Vertical Scaling Feature.

The fact that 36.7 percent of all patent cases filed in E.D. Tex. seems to be an exceptionally high degree of concentration in case filings, but the Lex Machina report further notes that 95 percent of civil litigation filed in E.D. Tex. is assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Of the 4,533 patent cases filed in U.S. district courts during 2016, a total of 1,119 cases were assigned to Judge Gilstrap alone. That means that, not only are more than one-third of all patent cases confined to a single district court, nearly 25 percent of all patent cases filed in the U.S. are assigned to a single ju

The facts of the underlying case were incredibly simplistic and not representative of a typical patent infringement case involving complex technologies. The parties agreed that the exported product consisted of one of five total “components of the patented invention,” so the Court did not address “how identify the ‘components’ of a patent or whether and how that inquiry relates to the elements of a patent claim.” Id. at FN2. Addressing the issue in a case with minimal real-world applicability does little to help the finder of fact determine whether a product contains one or multiple components of a patented invention. The decision in Promega does not relieve manufacturers from the risk that their single-part product could be used inadvertently to infringe a U.S. Patent overseas. When disputes arise under § 271(f), defendants will need to build strong evidence showing that their product only contains one component to avoid infringement, while plaintiffs will be crafting arguments that the total number of patented components is low and the exported product contains multiple components.

If the Supreme Court were to reverse the Federal Circuit and revert back to Fourco Glass, that would make it difficult for patent owners, including Whirlpool and others like them, to reasonably seek redress for patent infringement. Essentially, a reversion back to Fourco Glass would mean that patent infringement cases brought by corporations like Whirlpool would have to literally be brought in the home court of the patent infringer, or perhaps in Delaware where so many entities are incorporated. It would also necessitate a multiplicity of lawsuits, as Whirlpool explained in its amicus filing.

Perhaps not your typical or average patent, the ‘443 patent has some 135 patent claims, which relate to a proximity authorization unit, a proximity service unit, a method of using the proximity authorization unit, or a system for implementing the proximity authorization unit. The majority of the claims, however, are drafted specifically to cover the devices (i.e., the proximity authorization and service units)… This is not the first time that Disney’s MagicBand wireless communication products have been the target of patent infringement litigation. In April 2015, radio frequency system developer InCom Corporation of Sutter, CA, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) alleging that Disney’s MagicBands infringed upon InCom patents covering audience tracking system technologies. Last August, the two companies agreed to settle the case after InCom had alleged that Disney sold about 10 million MagicBands at $12.95 each after being notified of the potential infringement.

Wi-Fi One stands among the latest—and potentially the most important—in a series of cases that have called into question both the degree to which Congress intended to restrict the authority of federal courts to review certain decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the limits on Congress’s power to actually do so. While it remains to be seen how the en banc Federal Circuit will ultimately rule, the answer to its question will inevitably have a broad and deep impact on future inter partes review and other post-grant proceedings, Patent Office procedures, and beyond.