Posts Tagged: "patent"

On July 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated and remanded an Attorney Fee Order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denying an award of attorney fees to ShoppersChoice.com. Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC. v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC.  The CAFC held that the District Court erred in failing to consider Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC’s (ECT) manner of litigation and the objective unreasonableness of ECT’s infringement claims, and further held that the court applied the incorrect attorney fee statute.

On July 7, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in In re: Boloro Global Limited, granted a motion by Boloro Global Limited (Boloro) to vacate and remand the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in three ex parte appeals that affirmed an examiner’s rejection of claims of Boloro’s patent applications. Each of Boloro’s U.S. Patent Applications Nos. 14/222,613, 14/222,615, and 14/222,616 were rejected by the patent examiner as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On appeal, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejections and denied rehearing. In August 2019, Boloro appealed the decisions to the CAFC. Subsequently, in October 2019, the CAFC issued a decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., which was an appeal from an inter partes review, holding that administrative patent judges (APJs) were not constitutionally appointed.  In January 2020, Boloro filed a motion to vacate the Board’s decisions and remand for further proceedings consistent with the CAFC’s decision in Arthrex.

It was another relatively normal week at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board with 30 patent filings—two post grant reviews (PGRs), 28 inter partes reviews (IPRs)—and another big one in district court with 98 new petitions—but yet again, that spike is largely driven by WSOU’s unusual filing pattern. WSOU has now sued Google on 15 separate patents, all covering different software aspects of various products, and single patent suits—the former Uniloc contingent continues to drive the numbers up, and continues to favor the Western District of Texas to do so. Some of the petitions challenging the Magnetar Capital-backed Neodron were instituted this week, the same week a tranche of Magnetar’s Data Scape patents were affirmed unpatentable on Section 101 before the Federal Circuit; further Bausch & Lomb abbreviated new drug application (ANDA)-related suits were filed as discussed last week; and new and old-hand IP Edge subs continue to file at a brisk clip.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” reads the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, a document authored by Thomas Jefferson, edited by Benjamin Franklin, and signed by some 56 Congressional delegates. Over the weekend, we celebrated the 244th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and in light of everything that has happened over the second quarter of 2020 it is perhaps a good time to reflect. So much of the second quarter of 2020 has been defined by two major events— the unnecessary and unacceptable killing of George Floyd and COVID-19. In the coming weeks and months there will be much written and debated by experts in the field of social justice, police reform and government relating to just about every aspect of the events relating to the death of Mr. Floyd. As those conversations ensue, and reforms are brought to bear, as more fully explained below, America should also take this opportunity to have a broader conversation about private property rights— real, personal and intangible.

On July 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a holding of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Immunex Corporation, Amgen Manufacturing, Limited, Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., Sandoz International GMBH, Sandoz GMBH, holding that Sandoz failed to prove that the asserted claims were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), failure to meet the written description requirement, and obviousness for lack of motivation to combine the prior art references. The ruling for now blocks Sandoz from marketing its biosimilar version (Erelzi) of the popular rheumatoid arthritis drug, Enbrel. Judge Reyna dissented, arguing that certain clauses of the licensing agreement were illusory, thereby rendering the agreement an effective assignment for purposes of ODP.

When it comes to patents, timing matters. If two inventors are working on the same invention, it is the one who races to the patent office first that gets the brass ring. Perhaps the most famous example of a “patent race” is when Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray both filed a patent for the telephone on the same day. Bell won the patent, started a successful company, and is now synonymous with the telephone, while few people remember Gray. For years, economists have used patent races as the quintessential example of how firms innovate in the presence of competition. But these discussions are usually only grounded in theory. To gain more insight on how this plays out in the real world, Jeffrey Kuhn and I created the first way to identify patent races—and we used it to analyze the effect of patent racing on innovation.

With a growing number of users and increased demand for consumer electronics, smart-wearables, electric vehicles, Internet-of-Things (IoT) and Internet-of-Everything (IoET), the need for powering such devices and for hassle free charging has to keep pace with this rapid growth. “Wireless Charging” is the process of electrically charging battery-powered devices and equipment without the need for a wired electrical power connection. Broadly speaking, it includes three sub-types of charging: Inductive Charging, Resonance Charging, and Radio Charging.

As we emerge from a global pandemic in which many businesses are mothballed or operating at limited capacity, we know that a great number will not survive. They will have to pivot or sell, whether asset-by-asset or entirely. Some will face fire sales, assignment for the benefit of creditors, or Chapter 7 or 11 processes supervised by the bankruptcy courts, or otherwise. It has never been more important to be thoughtful as a buyer or seller of intellectual property and technology.

The Supreme Court’s Bilski v. Kappos decision—which celebrated its 10th birthday this past weekend—still matters, even in the age of Mayo-Alice. For one thing, the case marked the end of the patent-eligibility peace. For another, Bilski stands for the well-known principle that the “machine-or-transformation” test offers a “useful and important clue” as to whether the process claimed by a patent will qualify as patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. And at the same time, it stands for the fact that the machine-or-transformation test has been far more trivia than principle, the case law not having applied or considered that Bilski “clue” much beyond the Bilski case itself.

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari to Chrimar Systems, Inc., thereby letting stand a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and declining to consider the controversial issues of “when a judicial decision becomes binding on the parties, and whether a decree from a different branch of government can reverse an Article III court judgment.”

On June 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board in B/E Aerospace v. C&D Zodiac, Inc.  In particular, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s conclusion that the asserted patent claims would have been obvious because a modification of the prior art was nothing more than a predictable application of a known technology and because a modification would have been common sense.

The international economic disruption caused by COVID-19 presents unprecedented challenges. Thriving tech startup companies worth millions in January might find themselves struggling to stay afloat today. This article highlights the value of intellectual property (IP) that companies – particularly small companies without an IP department – can sometimes overlook in times of financial distress. The policy goals behind IP rights are at odds with the goals of bankruptcy law. Bankruptcy laws in the United States are “debtor friendly” and, in their most simplistic form, shield the party from certain debtors while forcing the sale of assets to pay other debts. But court ordered sales tend to undervalue complex property like IP. This is particularly apparent when it comes to patents.

On June 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the circuit court) affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC, holding that the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Graphic fraudulently obtained its patents through false claims of inventorship or through concealing prior sales.

On June 25, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed an appeal from two final written decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Shoes By Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Group, LLC, wherein the CAFC held that the PTAB did not err in concluding that the claims of two patents owned by Shoes by Firebug (Firebug) were obvious in view of the prior art.

Ten years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down what at the time was one of the most important patent decisions in decades. It signaled a new era in patent law—not least of all because Bilski seemed to jumpstart the Supremes’ interest in patent cases. On this milestone anniversary, it’s worth reminding ourselves how we ended up where we are today. In the years since Bilski, the Court has decided Mayo v. Prometheus, Myriad and Alice. If the decision in State Street can be said to have marked the onset of a golden era in the patentability of software and business method patents, the decision in Bilski marked the beginning of the end, and Alice was its death knell, with its introduction of a two-step test for eligibility. Indeed, the unpredictability of application of 101 extends throughout all practice areas.