Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

Novartis is currently involved in a multi-district patent litigation campaign to block generic entrants for Entresto®, which is Novartis’ blockbuster heart medication. In the fall of 2022, Novartis went to trial on the validity of one of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,101,659 (“the ‘659 patent”). On July 7, 2023, the district court invalidated the patent for lack of written description despite rejecting an enablement defense based upon the same evidence. The district court’s decision highlights a clear tension between claim construction and enablement that, if left to stand, could permit pharmaceutical companies to block lower-cost generic medications with patents they did not actually invent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential opinion holding that the reissue claims relating to a patent for a floating grill owned by Float‘N’Grill LLC (FNG) were not directed to the original invention and therefore were properly rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). U.S. Patent No. 9,771,132 is titled “Floating Apparatus for Supporting a Grill” and as issued in September, 2017. After issuance, FNG filed a reissue application for additional claims that were rejected by first the examiner and then the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The original claims required a “plurality of magnets” to which “a flattened bottom side of a portable outdoor grill is removably securable,” while the reissue claims “more generically call for the removable securing of a grill to the float apparatus,” according to the CAFC’s opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision finding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erred in too narrowly confining its motivation-to-combine inquiry and improperly limiting its definition of the relevant art to hold that Axonics, Inc. had failed to prove Medtronic, Inc.’s patent claims obvious. The patents at issue are Medtronic’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,626,314 and 8,036,756. They cover “a neurostimulation lead and a method for implanting and anchoring the lead.”

On Wednesday, July 5, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) released a summary of the responses it has received to its request for views on whether the country’s system for standard essential patents (SEP) is functioning properly. The goal of the request for comments and the subsequent report is to determine whether the UK government needs to make policy changes in this area. The Office received comments on a variety of topics related to SEPs, including the balance of the system, competition, transparency, patent litigation, and more. While both SEP holders and implementers reported problems in the system, the UKIPO found that there was little consensus among stakeholders as to the efficiency of the system and whether government intervention was needed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today issued a precedential opinion that said claim preclusion does not apply to allegations of induced infringement based on an earlier finding of direct infringement. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 8,206,987, owned by Inguran, LLC and directed to “a method for sorting bull sperm cells according to a specific DNA characteristic in order to preselect the gender of a domestic animal’s offspring,” according to the opinion. Inguran does business as STGenetics (ST). ST has been involved in litigation with “bull stud” company, ABS Global, Inc., since 2014.

A UK judge in May determined in a non-public judgment that has been widely reported on that Apple should pay Optis a total of $56.43 million plus interest for a worldwide FRAND license to Optis’s portfolio of 4G standard essential patents (SEPs). In the most recent development in the overall case, Apple yesterday reportedly lost its appeal in one of the four technical trials pending between the parties, meaning it could still be liable for fees related to infringement in the range of $7 billion.  

Imagine setting sail on a vast ocean, marked by established sea routes governed by mighty, seasoned mariners. These old sea dogs, with their extensive map collections (akin to patents), dominate the waters, leaving little room for new explorers. This is the situation young companies often find themselves in when chartering into territories monopolized by a few dominant players. The networking industry, ruled by giants like Cisco, Huawei, Juniper, Nokia, and Ericsson, mirrors this vast ocean. The waters are thick with “patent thickets” – tangled masses of patent claims, making it hard for fresh-faced voyagers to navigate without infringing on existing patents. Moreover, the sea is marked by “standardization” lighthouses, which while guiding ships towards interoperability and quality, impose limitations on the course of innovation. These beacons can also increase the cost of compliance, posing as formidable reefs blocking the path of emerging vessels.

Surveys conducted independent of litigation have had mixed success in court. These surveys have been offered as evidence of customer confusion in false advertising cases, intellectual property value in patent cases, consumer behavior in antitrust cases, and plaintiff identification in class actions. In some cases, non-litigation surveys have been admitted as useful evidence on important questions for which data are scarce; in others, they have been excluded as irrelevant or unreliable.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has granted a rare en banc review of its January, 2023, decision in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations, which affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that LKQ failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that GM’s design patent was anticipated or would have been obvious. U.S. Patent D855,508 covers a “vehicle front skid bar.” In its January decision, the Federal Circuit explained that “applying the tests established in Rosen and Durling, the Board found that LKQ failed to identify a sufficient primary reference, and therefore failed to prove obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Medytox, Inc. v. Galderma S.A. affirming a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating Medytox’s patent claims covering methods for treating patients with botulinum toxin and denying a revised motion to amend patent claims. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rebuffed several challenges, including an Administrative Procedures Act (APA) challenge to the PTAB’s motion to amend pilot program, holding that the PTAB’s change in claim construction was not arbitrary or capricious, nor did it prevent Medytox from litigating construction issues.

Last week was a big one for the potential future of the U.S. patent system. The deadline for comments on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on “Discretionary Institution Practices, Petition Word-Count Limits, and Settlement Practices for America Invents Act Trial Proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board [PTAB]” was Tuesday, June 20…. Then, on Thursday, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chris Coons (D-DE), with some help from their colleagues, introduced two new bills that would have major implications for patent eligibility law and PTAB practices, respectively. Below are some other perspectives from a range of IP stakeholders.

The UK High Court today issued an Approved Judgment in Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 1578 (Pat). While Lenovo was declared the “overall winner,” InterDigital was awarded interest, increasing their previous award by $46.2 million. In March, the Hon. Mr Justice Mellor issued a judgment ordering Lenovo to pay InterDigital a lump sum of $138.7 million for a global FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) license covering sales of cellular devices from 2007 to December 31, 2023. It was the second full FRAND trial to be decided by the UK courts, following the landmark Unwired Planet case.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari in a number of IP cases today, including three the U.S. Solicitor General had recommended rejecting. In Genius v. Google, ML Genius Holdings (Genius) attempted to sue Google for posting song lyrics from its website in Google search results. Genius’s petition asked the High Court to answer the question of whether the Copyright Act’s preemption clause allows a business “to invoke traditional state-law contract remedies to enforce a promise not to copy and use its content?”

On Wednesday, June 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in a nonprecedential opinion that a Florida district court correctly dismissed a UK-based patent owner’s infringement case after he willfully disobeyed the court and disrupted the enforcement of a court order. The ruling is the second time that the UK resident, Yoldas Askan, lost a patent infringement lawsuit against FARO Technologies. Askan first sued FARO, alleging that the firm’s 3D scanner product infringed on claims in three of his U.S. patents. In the first case, Askan was sanctioned twice by the court and failed to respond to a court order demanding that he show cause.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Amgen v. Sanofi upholds the Federal Circuit’s longstanding requirement to enable the full scope of a claimed invention. Since the Patent Act of 1790, patent law has required describing inventions with such clarity and specificity as to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention. Moreover, the Court has consistently held that a patent fails to satisfy the enablement requirement if a person having ordinary skill must engage in undue experimentation to practice the claimed invention. The Federal Circuit has gone a step further, requiring that patents enable the full scope of a claimed invention. Amgen is a ratification of this aspect of the Federal Circuit’s enablement jurisprudence.