Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

In Part I of this series of articles, we provided an overview of the 2013 and 2019 policy statements that preceded the 2021 Draft Policy Statement. In this Part II, we consider the language of a specific licensing commitment made to European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), and various legal pronouncements that have been made in relation thereto.

Patent licensing and technology transfer are cornerstones of modern economies, where the efficiencies of collaboration and division of labor do not require firms to be vertically integrated. The Wright brothers did not build commercial aviation, and yet commercial aviation was born thanks to the Wright brothers’ invention. Similarly, a car manufacturer can simply rely on communication technologies developed by telecom experts outside the automotive ecosystem to guarantee connectivity to its fleet and the corresponding massive economic benefits. This short article focuses on how risk – in the economic and legal sense – changes over time, and what this implies for patent licensing dynamics. Licensing negotiations are not static snapshots in time, they often evolve and change according to developing circumstances, case law, parties’ conduct, and many other factors.

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday asked the Solicitor General of the United States to weigh in on a petition for writ of certiorari that claims the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is depriving litigants of their right to trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment. The petition, filed in September by Olaf Sööt Design, LLC (OSD), asks the Court to take up the following question: “Whether the Seventh Amendment allows the Federal Circuit to reverse a jury verdict based on a sua sponte new claim construction of a term the district court concluded was not a term of art and construed to have its plain and ordinary meaning; where the Federal Circuit’s sua sponte claim construction essentially recasts a specific infringement factual question, previously decided by the jury, as a claim construction issue, to be decided de novo by the appellate court.”

In mid-November, consumer tech giant Apple filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision to dismiss Apple’s appeal of unsuccessful inter partes review (IPR) challenges to the validity of several patents owned by Qualcomm. In that ruling, the Federal Circuit found that Apple’s choice to enter a patent licensing agreement with Qualcomm covering the patents-at-issue extinguished Article III standing as to Apple’s appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The question presented by Apple’s petition is: “Whether a licensee has Article III standing to challenge the validity of a patent covered by a license agreement that covers multiple patents.”

In the last few weeks of 2021, patent owner New Vision Gaming & Development filed a motion for reconsideration  of a remand order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That ruling, entered in early December, remanded New Vision Gaming’s appeal of covered business method (CBM) review proceedings back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) “for the limited purpose” of requesting Director review of the CBM review decisions under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Arthrex standard. New Vision Gaming’s recent motion for reconsideration raises several issues regarding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) implementation of Director reviews under Arthrex, making this particular case an important one to follow through at least early 2022.

Reexaminations continue to gain favor, seeing a 47% increase over last year; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sees fewer filings; and filings by non-practicing entities (NPEs) rose by 4%, according to Unified Patents’ 2021 Patent Dispute Report: Year in Review, published earlier this week. The PTAB saw a nearly 12% decline in filings from the previous year, whereas district court proceedings remained unchanged, said the report. It added: “Operating companies filed 5.5% less cases in district court and over 10% less filings at the PTAB.”

In the United States and other countries, there is a growing awareness and increasing appreciation of the purpose and value of amicus curiae practice as an aid in adjudicative decision-making. The role of an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of a party, or in support of no party, is to supply, voluntarily, the presiding court or other tribunal in cases of controversy with pertinent information, insights, or arguments in a formal, publicly accessible manner. Toward that end, a well-written amicus brief is one that is useful to the decision-maker(s) in calling attention to relevant or material factual or legal aspects of the issue(s) in contention – aspects that the decision-maker(s) or the party-litigants may not have been aware of or able to develop fully.

On December 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a pair of precedential decisions in appeals raised by chipmaker Intel. These appeals came from final written decisions in several inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging the validity of patent claims owned by rival firm Qualcomm. In both decisions, the Federal Circuit found that Intel satisfied Article III standing requirements for appealing from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Standing has become a thorny issue that has plagued the Federal Circuit and PTAB.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) yesterday affirmed a district court’s ruling that Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 is not invalid and that HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. and HEC Pharm USA Inc.’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) infringed the patent. The CAFC found no clear error in the district court’s finding that the patent’s claims did not fail the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Chief Judge Moore dissented, arguing that the district court’s analysis was inconsistent with the CAFC’s established precedent. The ‘405 patent covers methods of treating relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) with fingolimod (an immunomodulating medication) or a fingolimod salt “at a daily dosage of 0.5 mg without an immediately preceding loading dose.”

Even as Europe and the rest of the world continued to face the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, the development of 5G and other Standard Essential Patent (SEP)-enabled technology standards has continued at an unabated pace. While the year has not yet ended, more than 100,000 technical contributions have already been submitted at 3GPP meetings for 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G in 2021 – a near-record yearly contribution count. The invention and standardization of massive, complex communication technologies continues to generate significant numbers of SEPs. According to IPlytics data, the cumulative number of self-declared SEP families has surpassed 72,000 in 2021, indicating a five-fold increase in just 10 years.

As of today, the 2022 Supreme Court docket is light on intellectual property cases, with the Court having granted review of only one copyright case. However, one other major case lurks in the background on an issue—patent ineligibility—upon which the Supreme Court has already demonstrated its interest. These two cases are examined in greater detail below.

This is Part II of a two-part article discussing FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing developments taking place in the United States in 2021. Read Part I here. After a slow summer on the FRAND licensing front, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in the matter of HTC v. Ericsson came in the dog days of August. As we wrote about here, the August 31 ruling dealt with, amongst other things, an appeal challenging the district court’s instructions to the jury regarding whether or not the license terms offered by Ericsson were FRAND and, more specifically, with respect to the issue of apportionment. Beyond finding that the failure to give instructions on an undisputed issue did not impair HTC’s ability to present its claims, the majority found that HTC’s proposed instructions “were not ‘substantially correct’ statements of law”.

From the perspective of the Intangible Investor, 2022 will be a year of new opportunities and transitional growth. IP business models will evolve, and risk and return calculations will become more reliable. In the decade since the America Invents Act (AIA) was enacted, patent licensing challenges have increased for many technology companies and independent inventors. The neutering of software, e-commerce and algorithm patents are at least partly responsible but, amazingly, software-related patents represent almost two-thirds of U.S. grants for the first half of 2021.

In April of this year, we provided a three-part series relating to the IP and Competitive Landscape for the mRNA market. In this post (Part I), we provide a 2021 year in review update on mRNA pioneers Moderna, BioNTech and CureVac, and in Part II, we profile Sanofi and other companies in the mRNA space and offer additional conclusions and outlook for 2022 and beyond.

This has been a year full of ups and downs, including at the International Trade Commisison (ITC). The ITC has stayed open for business, instituting a near-record number of investigations and holding hearings, albeit virtually. There have been a number of ITC decisions with interesting holdings, all of which have been covered well here and in other blogs. However, there have been a number of ITC-related happenings in 2021 which, though they received less coverage, may, like the proverbial butterfly, have important ramifications for years to come.