Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

On February 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Eastern District of New York’s grant of summary judgment that inventor David Tropp’s patents were invalid because they claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The appeal was brought by Tropp against Travel Sentry, Inc. and other lock and luggage makers. The asserted claims relate to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 (the ’537 patent) and 7,036,728 (‘728 patent). Representative claim 1 of the ’537 patent relates to a method of making available a dual-access lock having a combination-lock portion and a master-key-lock portion. The dual-access lock allegedly enables travelers to lock their bags while still allowing luggage screeners to access luggage (with a marked lock) with a master key.

Last month, I followed a hearing in a case called ParkerVision v. Qualcomm in Federal Court in the Middle District of Florida and reviewed the court briefs. This patent infringement case is potentially one of the largest of the year and is related to very important technology that miniaturized radio frequency (RF) transceivers, thus paving the way for the invention of the smartphone. Lawyer arguments in these hearings are very interesting, and you can learn a lot about the law. You can also learn how lawyers distort and twist the facts by confusing the court with word games, something I call word salad. Courts are pretty good at figuring out word games in most subject matter, but technology is foreign territory to many courts, so a well-tossed word salad can bring about an unjust decision.

Invoking familiar warnings about grave threats to U.S. innovation, 23 chief legal officers of big companies spanning industries from high-tech, internet and streaming to auto, financial services and home security, recently sent a letter to Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo calling on her to “immediately repeal the NHK-Fintiv rule” established by former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu via precedential Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions. According to the letter, NHK-Fintiv practice has written vital protections intended by the America Invents Act out of the law without public notice or comment, and “has caused—and continues to cause—immediate and irreparable harm to American innovators and manufacturers.”

An anti-suit injunction is an interim order issued by a court in one jurisdiction that prohibits a litigant from initiating or continuing parallel litigation in another jurisdiction. The practice of the anti-suit injunction is traced back to fifteenth century England, where royal courts issued writs of prohibition to stay parallel proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts or common law courts. Initially, the use of anti-suit injunctions was limited in England. By the nineteenth century, however, their use expanded to prevent litigation in other British colonies and eventually foreign countries.

The CAFC on Friday, February 11, denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by B.E. Technology in November of last year asking the court to intervene to “prevent an unconstitutional deprivation of B.E.’s property rights in the onslaught of IPR proceedings that have been brought to challenge the validity of its most critical patents.” B.E. has been embroiled in litigation with big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google for close to a decade now. The CAFC said in its denial that “B.E. has not shown a clear right to a different result here by relying primarily on a self-published article that is outside of the record.”

On February 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, explaining that the district court did not err in finding several Adapt Pharma patents obvious. The asserted claims relate to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,468,747; 9,561,177; 9,629,965; and 9,775,838 (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit claim methods of treating opioid overdose by intranasal administration of a naloxone formulation, as well as devices for intranasal administration. Naloxone is the active ingredient in Adapt’s NARCANâ Nasal Spray and is an opioid receptor antagonist, thus helping reverse the effects of opioid overdose. The opinion was authored by Judge Kara Stoll; Judge Pauline Newman dissented.

Last week included the end of January, which meant district court filings spiked as they usually do at the end of the month, with 92 new patent filings, and plenty of terminations (66). Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenges (41) were propped up by filings between Ericsson and Apple in their large-scale 5G dispute, Samsung challenging an entire portfolio, it seems, on some assets owned by a subsidiary of the perennial file-and-settle consort IP Edge (which seems to be getting big eyes and going after bigger players these days, after years of filing thousands of suits against smaller companies); a number of competitor-competitor chipmaker suits, including one by Infineon against more Vector Capital-backed Monterey Research semiconductor patents; challenges by Nokia against monetizer IP Bridge patents; and a number of petitions filed by Chanel against Molo Design Ltd.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania’s summary judgment that a medical device design patent was not invalid under the on-sale bar. Junker v. Medical Components, Inc. The district court found the patent was infringed and awarded damages in the amount of $1,247,910. But the CAFC held that a letter sent by the inventor’s business partner to Boston Scientific Corporation in 1999 represented a commercial offer for sale of the claimed design.

Judge Leonard Philip Stark was confirmed by the U.S. Senate yesterday to be the next judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, replacing Judge Kathleen O’Malley. O’Malley announced in July of last year that she will officially retire on March 11, 2022. Stark was confirmed by a vote of 61-35, which is reportedly one of the most bipartisan votes so far during President Joe Biden’s administration.

Imagine, as a patentee, that you assert your broadly claimed patent(s) against an alleged infringer, and your opponent takes you to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) via an inter partes review (IPR) petition, where they present sufficient evidence of obviousness such that you have to resort to (gulp) secondary considerations. While no dream situation for patentees, it is important to understand the patent owner’s evidentiary burden when confronting obviousness challenges using secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others and unexpected results. Here are three recent Federal Circuit decisions that are informative with respect to successfully (or unsuccessfully) utilizing evidence of commercial success in countering an obviousness attack.

In its second appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) regarding the sealing of documents in several related cases against Apple, Uniloc scored a win when the CAFC said today that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California failed to comply with its original remand instructions, constituting an abuse of discretion. The appellate court for a second time ordered the district court “to make particularized determinations as to whether the third-party licensing information sought to be sealed should be made public.”

On February 4, 2022, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on related inter partes reviews (IPRs) brought by Quanergy against Velodyne, explaining that the Board’s decision to uphold the validity of the disputed claims was correct considering the objective evidence provided by Velodyne. Quanergy challenged multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,969,558, covering a lidar-based 3-D point cloud measuring system best known for helping autonomous cars sense their surroundings. In its decisions, the PTAB held that several claims of the ’558 patent are not unpatentable as obvious.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) earlier today issued a precedential decision holding that the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware improperly denied Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd.’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the court’s misreading of the plain language of a contract’s forum selection clause. The CAFC consequently reversed the decision and remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction (PI) enjoining Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. from proceeding with its seven inter partes review petitions (IPRs) against Nippon Shinyaku and requiring that Sarepta withdraw the petitions.

On February 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a patent infringement decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that had awarded WiLAN, Inc. $85.23 million in damages from Apple Inc. Wi-LAN is the owner of two patents related to allocating bandwidth in a wireless communication system, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,457,145 (the ‘145 patent) and 8,537,757 (the ‘757 patent). In May 2014, Apple sued Wi-LAN in the Southern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for all claims of the ‘757 and ‘145 patents. Wi-LAN counterclaimed, asserting that certain Apple devices, including certain iPhone 5 and 6 models infringed claim 1 of the ‘757 patent and claims 9, 26, and 27 of the ‘145 patent based on their use of its Long-Term Evolution (LTE) wireless communication standard. Wi-LAN argued that the technology in the two patents at issue enabled Voice over Loong-Term Evolution (VoLTE), which enables voice call service over a 4G LTE network.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has become enamored with the power of the writ of mandamus to correct what they do not like, and they do not like patent owners filing patent infringement actions in Texas. Or, perhaps it is more accurate to say that while they might not mind patent owners filing patent infringement actions in Texas, they expect federal district court judges in Texas to order those patent owners off to other courthouses outside of Texas upon the request of defendants.