Posts Tagged: "CAFC"

The records revealed that Dr. Bielawski repeatedly testified that he personally conducted laboratory testing on J&J’s accused lenses when, in fact, the testing was conducted by Dr. Bielawski’s graduate students and various lab supervisors. Further, evidence suggested that Dr. Bielawski overstated his qualifications and experience with the relevant testing methods, and in fact had no experience whatsoever. There was also evidence that Dr. Bielawski withheld test results and data analysis that would have undermined his opinions and trial testimony.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. Undertaking an extensive analysis of the legislative history of Lanham Act damages, the Court attempted to explain a 1999 amendment inserting language regarding willfulness. Because the “willful violation” language appears to modify violations of § 1125(c) regarding dilution, Romag argued that the amendment negated any preexisting willfulness requirement for causes of action other than dilution. Relying heavily on Second Circuit precedent, which governed the district court decision, the Court disagreed.

Pride Mobility appealed, and noted that the Board construed claim 7 as requiring a “substantially planar” mounting plate “oriented perpendicular” to the axis of the wheelchair’s drive wheel, which the Board found in Goertzen. The Court found that the Board had misconstrued Claim 7, because the claim language made clear that the surface which rendered the mounting plate “substantially planar” must be perpendicular to the drive axis, not some other geometric feature of the mounting plate.

Cardpool, Inc., v. Plastic Jungle, Inc., NKA Cardflo Inc. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2016) (Before Newman, Reyna, and Wallach, J.) (Opinion for the court, Newman, J.)(Federal Circuit held dismissal with prejudice operates as res judicata for the same cause of action even if a subsequent reexamination amends claims.).

Clare sued Chrysler for infringement of two patents on hidden storage boxes for pick-up trucks. Clare argued that the limitations do not need a construction because the meaning is plain to a lay person. The Court disagreed, holding that even where a term has a plain and ordinary meaning, claim construction is appropriate where there is a dispute over the scope of the terms. Here, Clare argued that a storage box with a fluorescent orange external panel on a white pickup truck, and labeled “STORAGE” would meet the limitations, so long as the inside of the storage box was not visible from the outside. Chrysler argued that the external appearance limitations should take into account the external hinged panel used to access the storage box. In view of this dispute, the district court correctly resolved it construing the claim.

The District Court’s errors in the Broadband iTV decision are a paradigmatic and telling manifestation of certain of the manners in which district courts are misapplying the two-step Alice test in order to invalidate patents, creating something of a fait accompli at the outset of the filing of an Alice motion. Most notable is the alarming trend of certain district court Section 101 Alice invalidations that purport to resolve questions of law but that, upon closer scrutiny, only nominally invoke Section 101 to improperly sidestep the work of Sections 102, 103 and 112 of the Patent Act. The problem in so-doing is that district courts are utilizing the summary legal analysis permissible under Section 101 when, in fact, they should be undertaking the factually-intensive analysis required by Sections 102, 103 and 112. This sleight of hand has resulted in what is becoming a systematic invalidation of patents on a far lesser “legal” showing rather than the rigorous factual showing mandated by the Patent Act.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee on April 25, 2016, with a decision expected sometime before the end of June… [S]ome of the Federal Circuit judges have shown signs that their position on these questions are not as rigid as previously thought. This is not unprecedented – for example, when the Supreme Court was on the verge of considering the patent fee-shifting statute of 35 U.S.C. § 285 in the Octane Fitness case, Judge Rader was seen criticizing the Federal Circuit’s established test in a concurrence to the Kilopass Tech. Inc. v. Sidense Corp. case. The current Federal Circuit may also be recognizing that the present understanding of PTAB jurisprudence may be soon changing.

ACS challenged the Board’s decision that Shaw was not barred from bringing the second IPR because the petition was filed more than one year after a complaint for infringement was served on Shaw. It argued that the decision of the Board not to apply the one-year bar was a matter of statutory interpretation reviewable by the Federal Circuit, and not a decision whether to institute an IPR. The court disagreed, and held that it had no authority to review the Board’s application of the one-year bar. In dicta, the Court suggested that while voluntary dismissal without prejudice may undo the effect of the lawsuit, it may not undo the effect of service of a complaint, which triggers the one-year time bar. But the issue was not properly before the court.

The Court affirmed that B/E could not challenge the validity of MAG’s patents, because of assignor estoppel. In this case, MAG acquired the patents by assignment from a third party, who in turn acquired the patents from the inventors. After this assignment, one of the inventors went to work for B/E. The district court held that this inventor was as assignor of MAC’s patents and was barred from challenging the validity of the patents under the doctrine of assignor estoppel. Further, B/E was held to be in privity with its current employee (and past inventor/assignor of the patents). The assignor estoppel therefore attached to B/E, which was barred from attacking the validity of the patents.

Twenty-five years ago, the Federal Circuit decided a case that transformed where (and how) patent infringement cases can be litigated.[1] By expanding the scope of where a corporate defendant “resides” for venue purposes, the court in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance greatly increased the number of states and courts in which many corporations can be sued for infringement. This decision has contributed to the development of forum-shopping and related litigation issues over the past several years. One company, TC Heartland, LLC, is now urging the Federal Circuit to overturn that precedent and restore more stringent venue restrictions through a writ of mandamus, and dozens of others are joining the debate.

The Court held that dealing “physical playing cards” did not constitute patent eligible territory. This constituted a “purely conventional” activity, like the conventional computer implementation that fell short in Alice. The Court found there was no inventive concept sufficient to transform the subject matter into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.

On Friday, March 18, 2016, in a one paragraph Order that for some reason is not available on the Court’s website, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied that mandamus petition. The Court took the position that Trading Technologies simply has to go through the entire exercise of defending the ‘304 patent during a CBM review and then at the end they will circle back and determine whether the CBM should have been instituted in the first place. As if spending $1 million or more to defend a patent from a bogus challenge that never should have been instituted in a tribunal that clearly doesn’t have jurisdiction is no big deal. It just makes the Judges seem out of touch with the financial realities facing patent owners.

Halo sued Comptoir for infringing a large number of U.S. design patents, copyrights, and one common-law trademark relating to a number of Halo’s furniture designs. Both companies manufacture and sell furniture. Comptoir is a Canadian company that manufactures furniture in China, Vietnam, and India, and then imports that furniture into the United States for sale. Comptoir moved to dismiss the suit on forum non conveniens grounds, alleging that the Federal Court of Canada would be the appropriate forum for the dispute.

On March 10, 2016 the Federal Circuit sent two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) reexaminations back to the Patent Office. In proceedings initiated by IBM and SAS Institute Inc., the PTAB rejected claims for analyzing investment data in two patents owned by InvestPic LLC. The Board’s ruling turned upon two claim terms: (1) a “bias parameter” that determines a degree of randomness in sample selection in a resampling process”; and (2) “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments.”

Akzo appealed from the decision of the district court (Chief Judge Leonard Stark) to grant summary judgment to Dow, which found that Dow did not infringe the claims of U.S. Patent 6,767,956, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Dow also cross-appealed from the district court’s conclusion that the claims of the ’956 patent were not indefinite. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court on both appeals.