Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

After first “threatening,” then being “silent” for over three years, the patentee in Aspex Eyewear was barred by the defense of equitable estoppel from getting any relief for patent infringement. What’s even worse, after the initial “threat” of infringement the patentee in Aspex Eyewear created this ticking estoppel time bomb by failing to mention (in follow up exchanges) the two patents for which suit was filed, while mentioning three other patents which were not involved in the suit that was filed.

There is more than meets the eye to Nokia selecting the Western District of Wisconsin. According to a study done by Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, the average patent litigation is resolved in .56 years, just over 6 months, in the Western District of Wisconsin, which ranks first in terms of time to resolution for patent infringement actions. The Western District of Wisconsin also ranks first in terms of average time to trial, with the average being .67 years, or just 9 months to trial in patent infringement actions. Also, 7.4% of cases proceed to trial, which ranks third.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit earlier today decided to take up important issues relating to inequitable conduct en banc, vacating the earlier panel decision in Therasence, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson and Co., which issued January 25, 2010. Hopefully the entire Federal Circuit will be able to put to rest the nonsense that has become inequitable conduct, and if the questions presented are any indication we might be in store for a major re-write and settling of the law of inequitable conduct.

I do have a suggested alternative on the patenting of gene sequences that is far more sensible (and won’t kill our biotech sector) than the “all or nothing” approach of the new Becerra bill. Instead of banning the patenting of gene sequences, why not provide the U.S. government with something similar to the “march-in-rights” provision that currently exists in Bayh-Dole for patented technology developed through federally-sponsored research that is underutilized? Admittedly, this “march-in-rights” provision would have to be carefully structured so it isn’t abused by the federal government, as well as those who would push for its too frequent use because they feel “entitled.”

In a 52 page opinion Judge Means found the case an exceptional case for purposes of awarding attorneys fees under 35 USC 285, found that Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate and fined the attorneys involved and their law firms. The complete lack of investigation by the patent owner, the continued pursuit of infringement claims even after the patent owner’s deposition testimony admitted there was no infringement and persistent frivolous defenses painted this patent troll into a corner. On top of that, Judge Means determined that the attorneys for the patent owner misrepresented facts to the Western District of Pennsylvania in order to get a transfer to the Northern District of Texas. I wonder if this decision was handed down on April Fools Day for a reason? Nevertheless, watch out patent world if Rule 11 starts to grow teeth!

Litigation is where the big firms and larger IP firms make their money, that much is certain. Those firms with litigation practices that also engage in patent prosecution do so typically for the purpose of keeping clients in the firm for all their patent needs. With large fees available for litigators and extreme downward pressure on patent prosecution it is no wonder many boutiques can’t keep up. Litigation attorneys move on to greener pastures leaving patent prosecution specialists scrambling to pay overhead for an office at 100 Extremely Rich Sounding Street in Crazyexpensiveville.

It will likely come as a surprise to many, but I really don’t think the ACLU victory in the Myriad Genetics litigation is a big deal. Hakuna Matada is what I say. It’s actually a wonderful phrase. It means no worries for the rest of your days, and is a problem-free philosophy… blah blah blah… Picture begins to wiggle out of focus and fades to black in three… two… one… You are about to begin a journey through space and time, into another dimension. On this odyessy into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of the surreal, the vastness of the timeless infinity forms a middle ground between light and dark, between science and superstition, and it lies at the heart of humanity’s fears and the pinnacle of understanding. You are about to enter the Twilight Zone…

Unfortunately, the ACLU appears to have found an “ally” in Judge Sweet, who is the district court judge handling the AMP case. In my view, Judge Sweet has either been duped by the ACLU, or is more likely complicit in accepting the ACLU’s warped view of what these patents cover. That became evident when Judge Sweet denied the motions by Myriad and the USPTO to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Nothing in the appealed issues in Pressure Products (claim construction, denial of motion for JMOL, leave to amend answer) even remotely hints at or suggests the basis for this five judge panel. In fact, Pressure Products has all the markings of a fairly ordinary, garden variety patent infringement case. So why not the standard three judge panel? Not a word of explanation.

Whatever your opinion of the business model, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Cheryl Milone has turned Article One Partners a major player in the patent research field. Article One is attracting big name members to the Board of Directors, they have started a patent quality review blog and Milone was recently invited to the White House to participate in a round-table event, which she talks about in our conversation. So, without further ado, here is my conversation with Cheryl Milone. We talk patent reform, reexamination, patent litigation, improved patent search and IT databases, claim construction and more.

The victories selected represent a diverse array of wins, which a press release announcing the Top 10 list says is due to “the differing objectives of IP litigation today.” These victories range from multimillion-dollar jury verdicts, including the biggest patent award ever, which was won by Johnson & Johnson’s Centocor Ortho Biotech unit against Abbott Laboratories, to the i4i injunction win blocking the distribution of Microsoft Word editions having a popular XML feature.

Sitting by designation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, soon to be Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, Judge Randall Rader, granted summary judgment to Google Inc. and AOL LLC in the case brought by Performance Pricing, Inc., which alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,253. Judge Rader ruled that there was no infringement and summary judgment was appropriate because there were no genuine issues of fact in dispute. More specifically, Rader determined that AdWords does not contain a price-determining activity.

Coming as no surprise, a majority of the en banc Federal Circuit just ruled in Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly &Co. that there is there is a separate and distinct “written description” requirement in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Also not surprisingly, there were multiple concurring (and dissenting) opinions. Judge Lourie (writing the majority opinion) has now won the on-going debate that has raged between him and Judge Rader (who has strenuously argued there is no written description requirement separate and distinct from the “enablement” requirement) since the 1997 case of Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co.

In the case of Henryk Oleksy v. General Electric Company, et al (ILND 1-06-cv-01245), a settlement conference occurred recently. Quite a normal activity in patent litigation cases. But something about this particular entry caught our eye. Patent litigators were complimented for being civil by the district court. This is not something you typically see, but when there are these types of “feel good” moments they are worthy of being noted.

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2010) (“SEB”) addresses a defendant’s liability for inducement as well as for direct infringement. It is significant in that it may expand the scope of infringement liability, particularly for foreign defendants, in multiple respects.  What follows is an Executive Summary of SEB…