Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

The back-to-school lull is in full effect this week, with 54 district court patent filings, 88 terminations, and 21 new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings, all inter partes reviews (IPRs), with all filings slightly below average numbers. This week saw more Express Mobile, Inc. institutions at the Board, suggesting that, of the five rather widely asserted assets (hundreds of suits against hundreds of defendants), all five are likely invalid for various reasons. Qualcomm in an IPR cancelled some of the semiconductor patents being asserted via the University of New Mexico; public records indicate that UNM has been acting as a vehicle for assertions in the space, and is one of the more aggressive universities to spin out NPEs for suit.  Google lost a patent to a Phillips challenge against FitBit; and a lot of activity from frequent entities managed by Jeffrey Gross, including a one-patent (expired) case against wearable companies that has been bought and sold a number of times over the past few years; RPX appears to have a license.

On August 19, British brand name pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing a petition for writ of certiorari filed by generic drugmaker Teva Pharmaceuticals. Teva’s petition appeals a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reinstating a jury verdict that found Teva liable for inducing infringement of GSK’s patents covering the heart failure treatment, Coreg. GSK’s brief argues that the Federal Circuit properly applied the law on induced infringement and that the “skinny label” arguments raised by Teva’s petition only affect 30% of the damages awarded by the jury in the case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in a precedential decision issued today, affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that claims to a computer system for identifying eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits are invalid as patent ineligible. The opinion was authored by Judge Chen. The case originates from an examiner’s rejection of Jeffrey Killian’s claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/450,042 under Section 101 as being directed to “the abstract idea of ‘determining eligibility for social security disability insurance . . . benefits’” and lacking anything “significantly more” to satisfy Step 2 of the Alice-Mayo two-part test.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in eBay v. MercExchange, when there was a finding of infringement, granting an injunction was almost automatic. See Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989). But eBay rejected this categorical grant of injunctions, raising the bar for obtaining such relief.  The Court’s decision in eBay sets forth the test used in United States district courts for establishing the necessity of a permanent injunction. The four eBay factors represent four high hurdles for patentees to meet for the entry of this exceptional relief and four avenues for alleged infringers to attack such requests. After looking at the contemporary grant rates for injunctive relief, we outline just some of the ways in which patentees can meet these hurdles and ways in which alleged infringers may refine their attacks.

Late last week, the parties to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institution decisions in OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01064 and Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01229, filed their opening briefs. While OpenSky vehemently denied any abuse of the PTAB system, VLSI said the cases force the USPTO to answer the question “whether the Office should allow itself to be used to facilitate extortion.”

Investigations brought under 19 U.S.C. § 1337, commonly known as “Section 337” cases, at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) have become a go-to enforcement option for patent owners seeking fast, injunction-type relief against infringing imports. It is well known that the ITC issues powerful remedial orders, including (1) exclusion orders, which order United States Customs and Border Protection (Customs or CBP) to exclude infringing imports imported by Respondents or, in some cases, third parties, and (2) cease-and-desist orders, which order Respondents not to import or sell infringing, imported products in the United States. Because ITC remedial orders are broadly written to cover even unadjudicated products that infringe the subject patents, and because such orders are only prospective in nature, it is critical for ITC litigants and their attorneys to understand the available procedures to adjudicate redesigned products.

In its third precedential patent decision this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a district court’s finding that Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) does not infringe two patents owned by Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Sterile Products, LLC, and Endo Par Innovation Company, LLC (collectively, Par). The CAFC also affirmed the district court’s denial of declaratory judgment that the sale of the proposed generic product would infringe.

On August 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Click-to-Call Technologies LP v. Ingenio, Inc. finding in part that, as a matter of law, Ingenio was estopped from challenging the validity of a patent claim on grounds it could have reasonably challenged during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Although the impact of this precedential holding will likely be limited due to the “unusual procedural posture” of this case, which involves a partial IPR institution prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in SAS Institute, the Federal Circuit’s decision does underscore the circuitous nature of PTAB proceedings that often add many years to patent lawsuits filed in U.S. district court.

Inventor Ramzi Khalil Maalouf yesterday filed an amicus brief suggesting that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (UPSTO) Director Kathi Vidal change the language of Rule 37 CFR 42.12(a)(6)) to indicate that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) “shall” rather than “may” sanction abuse of the post grant process. The brief was filed in response to Vidal’s July request relating to OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01064 and Patent Quality Assurance [PQA], LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01229, both of which have been the subject of much scrutiny by members of Congress and patent practitioners.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential order denying a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Palo Alto Networks (PAN) that asked the court to compel the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to grant Director Review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decisions not to institute inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) of Centripetal Networks’ patents. PAN argued that the USPTO’s policy of refusing to accept requests for Director Review of institution decisions violates the Appointments Clause as set out in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

On August 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB affirming a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated all challenged claims as obvious or anticipated. In so holding, the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB properly construed a product-by-process claim element as not entitled to patentable weight and dismissed Kamstrup’s arguments that the asserted prior art was not analogous to the patented invention.

With Judge Alan Albright no longer a lock for patent litigants in the Western District of Texas, prospective claimants and their counsel should be rethinking their venue selection strategies. Litigants and lawyers who previously relied on Judge Albright’s favorable procedural rules and efficient trial schedules as a proxy for more rigorous due diligence will now need to take a closer look at the merits of their cases when considering whether and where to file. For those navigating this new world order, litigation funders serve as a valuable resource. Experienced funders can offer objective advice about the strengths and weaknesses of complex patent infringement cases, strategic insights about potential litigation venues, and non-recourse financing for meritorious cases.

On August 5, US Inventor and Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund (Eagle Forum ELDF) jointly filed an Amicus Brief supporting inventor David Tropp’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) regarding whether Tropp’s method claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Tropp owns two patents relating to luggage lock technology that enables airport screening of luggage while still allowing the bags to remain locked. In July, just days after the Court denied cert in American Axle, Tropp asked the High Court to answer the question: “Whether the claims at issue in Tropp’s patents reciting physical rather than computer-processing steps are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as interpreted in Alice Corporation Pty v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).”

“How can I help?” Not even the mayor of Miami could have predicted the effect those four simple words would have on the city traditionally known for its palm trees and nightlife. But that tweet, sent by Mayor Francis Suarez in December 2020, caused a tech hurricane to touch down in the South Florida area. The tweet, shown below, was in response to a San Francisco venture capitalist who (likely somewhat facetiously) suggested that Silicon Valley be moved to Miami.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today, in a precedential decision, revisited its 2020 holding that the doctrine of assignor estoppel bars Minerva Surgical, Inc. from challenging the validity of Hologic Inc.’s patent directed to a device for treating a uterus. The decision comes on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the 2020 ruling and returned it to the CAFC for further consideration of the Justices’ determination that the doctrine of assignor estoppel comes with certain limits. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2021 that assignor estoppel—which bars the assignor of a patent from later attacking the patent’s validity—“is well grounded in centuries-old fairness principles…[but] applies only when the assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent.” Thus, while the Court rejected Minerva’s request that the doctrine be abandoned, it vacated the CAFC’s 2020 judgment and remanded the case to address “whether Hologic’s new claim is materially broader” than the ones that were assigned.