Posts Tagged: "patent infringement"

Yesterday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held a “public listening session” to hear from industry leaders on the topic of standard essential patents. The event was specifically related to the USPTO’s effort to obtain stakeholder input on questions regarding proposed international standards that were presented in a recent Federal Register Notice, as well as strategies identified in the White House’s National Standards Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies.

A recent decision out of the Eastern District of Texas granted the plaintiff patent owner summary judgment with respect to the defendants’ counterclaim that the plaintiff breached licensing related obligations owed to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) by not communicating with the defendants prior to suing for infringement…. While the result is reasonable, the explanations provided by the court raise several questions.

Pfizer, Inc. and BioNTech SE on Monday hit back at competitor COVID-19 vaccine maker Moderna with inter partes review (IPR) petitions against two Moderna patents on mRNA vaccine technology at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Pfizer/ BioNTech told the PTAB that Moderna’s patents include “unimaginably broad claims directed to a basic idea” and asked the Board to cancel all of the challenged claims of both patents.  

In a precedential decision issued today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that found all claims of a Volvo Penta patent unpatentable as obvious. The court found that the PTAB erred in its analysis of nexus between the claims and evidence of secondary considerations, as well as in its weighing of the objective indicia of nonobviousness.

On June 12 and 13, 2023, the German giant textile company, Oerlikon Textile G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G. (Oerlikon), filed two applications with the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC’s) Milan Local Division to preserve evidence against two Indian companies accused of infringing the (Italian portion) of the European patent EP214848B1, which covers a “False twist texturing machine”. The defendants, Himson Engineering Private Limited (“Himson”), and Bhagat Group, were exhibiting two machines at a trade fair, bearing the trade names Machine 2 and Machine 2-TS, along with a machine bearing the trade name, Bhagat Textile Engineers.

Following years of infringement litigation over its patented wireless chip technologies, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has recently enjoyed a pair of settlement outcomes pointing to the strength of the research university’s patent holdings. The accused technologies in those cases overlap with other Caltech patent suits currently pending, which could presage further settlements recognizing the value of the university’s R&D activities.

Your company (or your client’s company) is an American company. All your offices and employees are here in the United States, likely in the same location. You assemble your products or devices here. You purchase all the parts and components that you don’t make yourself from other American companies, probably by calling or emailing their American salespeople that you have a longtime relationship with. And you sell your products to other American companies. Surely your company thus cannot be sued for patent infringement in the International Trade Commission (ITC), whose mission is to “investigate and make determinations in proceedings involving imports claimed to injure a domestic industry or violate U.S. intellectual property rights.” Not so fast.

On July 7, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot issued a Notice of Initial Determination in favor of computer and graphics processor maker AMD. See In the Matter of Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Digital Televisions Containing the Same (No. 337-TA-1318). This puts AMD one step closer to preventing TCL and Realtek from importing smart TVs and components containing infringing graphics processors in its patent infringement case at the International Trade Commission (ITC).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today issued a precedential opinion that said claim preclusion does not apply to allegations of induced infringement based on an earlier finding of direct infringement. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 8,206,987, owned by Inguran, LLC and directed to “a method for sorting bull sperm cells according to a specific DNA characteristic in order to preselect the gender of a domestic animal’s offspring,” according to the opinion. Inguran does business as STGenetics (ST). ST has been involved in litigation with “bull stud” company, ABS Global, Inc., since 2014.

A UK judge in May determined in a non-public judgment that has been widely reported on that Apple should pay Optis a total of $56.43 million plus interest for a worldwide FRAND license to Optis’s portfolio of 4G standard essential patents (SEPs). In the most recent development in the overall case, Apple yesterday reportedly lost its appeal in one of the four technical trials pending between the parties, meaning it could still be liable for fees related to infringement in the range of $7 billion.  

Imagine setting sail on a vast ocean, marked by established sea routes governed by mighty, seasoned mariners. These old sea dogs, with their extensive map collections (akin to patents), dominate the waters, leaving little room for new explorers. This is the situation young companies often find themselves in when chartering into territories monopolized by a few dominant players. The networking industry, ruled by giants like Cisco, Huawei, Juniper, Nokia, and Ericsson, mirrors this vast ocean. The waters are thick with “patent thickets” – tangled masses of patent claims, making it hard for fresh-faced voyagers to navigate without infringing on existing patents. Moreover, the sea is marked by “standardization” lighthouses, which while guiding ships towards interoperability and quality, impose limitations on the course of innovation. These beacons can also increase the cost of compliance, posing as formidable reefs blocking the path of emerging vessels.

The UK High Court today issued an Approved Judgment in Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 1578 (Pat). While Lenovo was declared the “overall winner,” InterDigital was awarded interest, increasing their previous award by $46.2 million. In March, the Hon. Mr Justice Mellor issued a judgment ordering Lenovo to pay InterDigital a lump sum of $138.7 million for a global FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) license covering sales of cellular devices from 2007 to December 31, 2023. It was the second full FRAND trial to be decided by the UK courts, following the landmark Unwired Planet case.

On Wednesday, June 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in a nonprecedential opinion that a Florida district court correctly dismissed a UK-based patent owner’s infringement case after he willfully disobeyed the court and disrupted the enforcement of a court order. The ruling is the second time that the UK resident, Yoldas Askan, lost a patent infringement lawsuit against FARO Technologies. Askan first sued FARO, alleging that the firm’s 3D scanner product infringed on claims in three of his U.S. patents. In the first case, Askan was sanctioned twice by the court and failed to respond to a court order demanding that he show cause.

In what may foreshadow upcoming changes to case allocations in the Western District of Texas, Judge Alan Albright of the Waco Division appears to have revived his former practice of retaining cases transferred from the Waco Division to the Austin Division following granted Section 1404 motions (i.e., convenience transfers). In his first years on the bench, Judge Albright habitually retained cases transferred out of Waco to the “sister” Austin Division on his personal docket. As one of the more notable examples, all three of the (much-covered) VLSI v. Intel litigations were transferred to Austin and retained by Judge Albright; two of the three cases were then retransferred back to Waco to allow trial to timely proceed, notwithstanding COVID-related closures in Austin.