Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment that Baxalta, Inc. and Baxalta GmbH’s Hemophilia patent claims are invalid for a lack of enablement. The court said the facts of the case are “materially indistinguishable from those in Amgen.”… While Baxalta tried to argue its screening process does not require the type of trial and error described in Amgen and instead “predictably and reliably generates new claimed antibodies every time it is performed,” the court said “this does not take the process out of the realm of the trial-and-error approaches rejected in Amgen.”

The third annual IPWatchdog LIVE conference opened with panels examining global trends in IP policy and a review of U.S. Supreme Court case law, as well as the presentation of the third annual Paul Michel Award, which each year honors a respected industry leader and advocate for fairness in the IP community. On a panel that detailed some of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court’s IP decisions, retired U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Paul Michel described the arguably contradictory holdings in Google v. Oracle and Warhol v. Goldsmith as “useless” in terms of substantive guidance from the Court. “These two cases represent a failure on the part of the Supreme Court to provide meaningful guidance to users who need it now,” Michel said. Professor Llew Gibbons of the University of Toledo College of Law explained the holdings in each of the cases and concluded that “I couldn’t find a principled reason other than ‘we want to come out differently’” for the Court’s ruling in Warhol, considering the Google decision.

Famously, section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) are fast. By statute, the ITC must conclude section 337 investigations “at the earliest practicable time . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1). Investigations institute within 30 days after the Commission receives a complaint, evidentiary hearings (akin to trial) regularly occur within 8–9 months, and the ITC’s target dates for completing investigations routinely land at 14–16 months.

The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal (FCA), in Attorney General of Canada v. Benjamin Moore & Co. [2023 FCA 168], a 3-0 decision, recently set aside the test on subject matter eligibility of computer-implemented inventions laid down by the Federal Court [2022 FC 923] last year. Acclaimed by patent professionals as a “favorable decision for Canadian applicants who have computer-implemented inventions,” the test had, for the first time, presented a declaratory relief and guidance for examining subject-matter eligibility, particularly for computer-implemented inventions. While the setting aside of the test relays subject matter assessments back to the procedure set by the Commissioner of Patents (Canada), the FCA clarified some key areas associated with the claim construction and patentability analysis.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued two precedential opinions vacating and remanding decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In the first, the court said the PTAB abused its discretion in finding that Netflix, Inc. failed to articulate a field of endeavor to establish analogous art, vacating the Board’s decision in part. In the second, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s finding that Apple, Inc. had failed to prove Corephotonics’ patent claims unpatentable as obvious, holding that the evidence supported a different claim construction than that adopted by the Board in one decision, and because the Board’s decision in the second inter partes review (IPR) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 143 S. Ct. 1243, 1248 (2023), found that antibody claims defined by their binding and blocking function lacked enablement…. The Supreme Court’s decision relied highly on the unpredictability of the art—scientists cannot always predict how substitutions of even single amino acids will affect the binding and/or blocking function of an antibody. The disclosed methods of identifying species within the scope of the claim were little more than “trial and error.”… The consensus seems to be that Amgen generally forecloses broad genus claims in the biotechnology field. The remaining questions are: Are patent applicants limited to claiming species (e., sequence listings)? What steps may a patent applicant take to obtain broader coverage?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an order on Tuesday denying Charter Communications Inc.’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the district court to dismiss Entropic Communications’ patent infringement suit against it for improper venue. Entropic sued Charter in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement, and Charter moved to dismiss for improper venue. The district court denied the motion, holding that Charter “committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business” in the district.

This week, 10 amici weighed in at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a rare en banc review of the court’s January, 2023, decision in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations. That decision affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that LKQ failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that GM’s design patent was anticipated or would have been obvious.

In an IPWatchDog post of September 6, 2022, Anthony Prosser and I traced the history of the doctrine of “Non-Statutory Judicially Created Obviousness-Type Double Patenting” (ODP). We confirmed (as its name indicates) that no Congressional statute has ever codified this doctrine. It is ultra vires because Congress has the sole right to create patent law…. In the Cellect decision issued yesterday, the Federal Circuit stretches the word “disclaimer” in Section154(b)(2)(B) beyond credibility as justification for the ODP doctrine itself and assumes that is what Congress was talking about without actually saying it (stating with agreement that “The Board also reasoned that terminal disclaimers arise almost exclusively in situations to overcome ODP rejections, and so Congress, by addressing terminal disclaimers in §154, effectively addresses ODP”).

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.

In addition to unrecoverable issues like divided infringement, it’s no secret that patents have come under increased scrutiny over the last decade. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to invalidate patent claims at an alarming rate, defendants have ever-increasing invalidity and non-infringement arguments to make in district court, and the Supreme Court’s Alice decision on patent eligibility continues to baffle the entire patent community…. While the patent community debates the need for reform, an easy and attainable solution, and one that is within your control, is simply to strengthen the patents before they issue.

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.