Posts Tagged: "patent"

On February 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc. that vacated rulings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nixing validity challenges by American grill maker Weber against Provisur’s commercial food slicer patent claims. The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB on claim construction and also found that the Board misapplied CAFC precedent on the level of public dissemination required before printed publications can qualify as prior art.

It was a busy week at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with 40 new filings—all inter partes review (IPR)—and an average week in the district courts with 51 new filings. The bulk of new PTAB filings can be attributed to a few petitioners challenging multiple patents held by one patent owner (and all asserted in parallel district court litigations). For example, Apple continued its filings against Carbyne Biometrics LLC [associated with Bjorn Markus Jakobsson] patents, adding another five petitions against four patents to the two filed earlier this month

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision vacating and remanding a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that a patent for a climate control system was not proven unpatentable by Google LLC and Ecobee, Inc. In so doing, the court clarified how to determine when a court or the PTAB has implicitly construed a claim.

One day before comments closed on the Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights, published by the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) and the Department of Commerce last month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) denied an appeal of a decision not to march in on the blockbuster prostate cancer drug, Xtandi®.

The first software patent was granted in 1968. It’s now been three decades since the “Year of the Algorithm” in 1994, when cases such as In re Allapat, In re Lowry, and In re Beauregard initiated a wave of software patents. Well over half of U.S. patents granted annually are at least “software-related,” and even a cursory search of U.S. patents reveals software patents in fields ranging from encryption to speech recognition to network security. Why, then, do so many people continue to think that software cannot be patented at all? What explains the stark contrast between the long-standing legal reality and the beliefs of otherwise well-informed engineers, high-tech business people, and even some lawyers?

An en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today heard arguments from LKQ Corporation, the U.S. government and GM Global Technology Operations in a case that could change the test for assessing design patent obviousness. The judges seemed interested in tweaking the existing “Rosen-Durling” test but struggled with getting the parties to clearly articulate a replacement approach that wouldn’t be potentially just as bad. The so-called Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness requires that, first, under In re Rosen (C.C.P.A., 1982), courts identify a prior art reference “the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design.” Next, under Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. Cir., 1996)), if such a reference is identified, the court must consider whether it can be modified based on other references to come up with “the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.”

February 6 is the final day of the 60-day public comment period set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) request for information on its draft interagency framework for exercising march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. While lauded by drug pricing advocates, almost every other sector of the American economy has come out in opposition to the draft framework. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Bayh-Dole Coalition have all publicly opposed NIST’s efforts to exercise legal authority for relicensing patent rights based on product pricing considerations.

For decades, patent litigators have followed what can best be described as a forced march seeking to construe patent terms and thereafter litigate infringement and/or validity issues based on those constructions. We all know the drill: exchange contentions; flag contested claim terms; brief their constructions; apply the facts to the court’s constructions; and grind out infringement and validity evidence like so much sausage. Rarely do litigants ask courts to take a step back and construe an asserted claim “as a whole,” and rarely do courts do so if they have not been asked. But sometimes the lack of a holistic claim analysis can lead to a shock to the system at trial, at which time one narrowly construed term can steamroller another broader construed term. The result can be the loss of an infringement claim or an invalidity defense. Such losses may or may not be avoidable, but facing the music earlier can save everyone a great deal of time and resources.

A recent decision out of the Eastern District of Texas sheds further light on Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s interpretation of a patent owner’s commitment to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) pursuant to ETSI’s Intellectual Property Rights Information Statement and Licensing Declaration (“the ETSI Licensing Declaration”). The decision, however, also raises some questions for SEP owners. A little over a year ago, we considered how French and California law would interpret a patent owner ‘s commitment to ETSI pursuant to the ETSI Licensing Declaration. The in depth analysis can be found here, while a summary version published on IPWatchdog can be found here. At a high level, we considered the issue both from the perspective of performance being possible without implementer engagement, and from the perspective of performance requiring implementer cooperation.

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made its initial offers to pharmaceutical companies pursuant to the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which allows the U.S. Government to “negotiate” Medicare drug prices under a set framework based upon the amount of time a drug has spent on the market. Opponents of the program, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is suing the government over the plan, argue it cannot be characterized as a voluntary negotiation since the affected companies would be subject to onerous excise taxes for refusing to participate and because it would have devastating consequences for patients if companies were to actually pull the affected drugs. The amounts of today’s initial offers were not revealed.

It was an average week for patent filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and a slightly above-average week in district courts, with 62 district court complaints filed and 21 new PTAB petitions—one petition for Post Grant Review (PGR), and 20 for Inter Partes Review (IPR). The PTAB instituted 13 cases; iInstitution was denied in 12 cases and 15 cases settled. In district courts, 62 new cases were filed and 12 cases were terminated.

In a recent brief to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Pfizer and BioNTech (Pfizer) told PTAB judges that Moderna’s dismissal of prior art listed in Pfizer’s August 2023 petition for inter partes review (IPR) of Moderna’s patent on mRNA vaccine technology is inconsistent with its declarations to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the drug approval process. According to the brief, when Moderna was seeking approval for its COVID-19 vaccines, the company “candidly represented to the FDA that prior studies for related vaccines…supported an expectation of safety and efficacy. But now, faced with invalidating vaccine prior art…Moderna wrongly casts the same vaccine prior art as irrelevant.” The brief referred to this as a “litigation-driven one-eighty.”

Speakers at IPWatchdog’s PTAB Masters 2024 program this week predicted there will be little movement on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking anytime soon, but some pinned their hopes for change at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to the pending Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act. Both panelists who typically represent petitioners and those who represent patent owners at the PTAB also agreed there are a number of ways the perception of the Board could be improved. These could include changes like allowing oral argument more often, allowing experts to testify in person, and a more meaningful rehearing procedure, for example.

Last week, biopharmaceutical company Liquidia Technologies filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal a Federal Circuit ruling that affirmed induced infringement findings against Liquidia following the patent at issue being invalidated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In the petition, Liquidia argues that two previous Supreme Court rulings lead to a result contrary to the Federal Circuit’s determination that the invalidation of patent claims at the PTAB do not have preclusive effect on infringement litigation pending an appeal of the PTAB’s decision.

It was little more than a month ago when the Biden Administration unleashed its draft guidelines for applying the march-in provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act. For more than 43 years, the law was implemented as written. Every Administration—including the Biden Administration—rejected repeated attempts to misuse the law so the government could license copiers when critics felt that a product based on a federally-funded invention was too expensive. This was mainly sought under the guise of lowering drug prices. Even though the Administration issued a stinging denial of the most recent attempt last March, in December it reversed course.