Posts Tagged: "District Court"

The 9th Circuit affirmed the title ‘Empire’ was speech protected under the First Amendment and did not infringe trademarks owned by Empire Distribution… The panel instead determined that the title Empire supported both the themes and the geographic setting of the work. The panel also found the the use of the “Empire” mark was not explicitly to mislead customers; the panel noted that the show Empire made no overt claims to Empire Distribution.

In Promega Corporation v. Life Technologies Corporation, on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit affirmed district court rulings that granted Life Technologies’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that Promega Corp. had failed to prove its infringement case under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and § 271(f)(1), and subsequently denied Promega’s motion for a new trial.

Luckily for Apple and Microsoft, however, VirnetX did not assert the ‘135 patent against Mangrove Partners, a hedge fund, which filed a petition for IPR against the ‘135 patent on April 14th, 2015; Mangrove reportedly shorted VirnetX stock around this time. On October 7th, 2015, the PTAB panel adjudicating the case decided to institute the IPR as the petitioner Mangrove had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving invalidity of the challenged claims. Then in January 2016, Apple was successful in having its petition for IPR review of the challenged ‘135 claims joined to Mangrove’s IPR. VirnetX had objected to Apple’s motion for joinder based on the Section 315(b) language but the PTAB found that Section 315(b) did not apply to joinder motions which are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).

The Federal Circuit heard the case of Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., where the Appellant, Secured Mail Solutions LLC (“Secured Mail”) appealed from the grant of a motion to dismiss on grounds that the claims of seven asserted patents are directed to subject matter ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of Universal’s motion to dismiss… Claims determined to be patent-ineligible based on intrinsic evidence from the specification can be dismissed, at the motion to dismiss stage, without need for “extraneous fact finding outside the record.”

On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514 (2017), the Supreme Court held that patent venue is controlled exclusively by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which restricts venue in patent cases to (1) where the Defendant resides, or (2) where the Defendant commits an act of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. The decision was immediately hailed by commentators as a significant break with past precedent… Despite the common perception of practitioners that the TC Heartland decision changed the law of venue in patent cases, the majority of district courts to address this issue have come to the opposite conclusion, finding that the decision merely reaffirmed existing law and could not excuse the failure to raise the defense earlier. The reasoning of these decisions is questionable, as is the refusal of these courts to recognize how dramatically TC Heartland changed the landscape for patent litigation.

My intuition is that the judge came to the correct conclusion, but that the Supreme Court test ultimately did little to guide her thinking.  As I mentioned in my previous IPWatchdog article, determining the contours of the useful article is a metaphysical exercise that likely will require other “tests” to resolve.  Why, for instance, does the useful article not consist of the lighting elements, sockets, wires and covers, which the judge admits also serve important utilitarian functions?  What factors caused her to draw the line so that the covers were not included within her concept of the useful article?  My guess is that it came down to the fact that in her view, “The primary purpose of the cover is artistic; once the covers are removed, the remainder is a functioning but unadorned light string.” 

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo, there have been approximately 100 cases analyzing whether the adjudged infringer acted egregiously/willfully en route to a determination of whether to enhance a damages award (and, if so, to what degree damages should be enhanced). The issue of egregiousness/willfulness and/or enhanced damages has been the subject of Federal Circuit opinions on seven occasions since Halo. With two exceptions noted herein regarding the availability of enhanced damages for infringement occurring after suit has been filed, these cases do not provide much in the way of additional guidance other than re-tracing the evolution of the law governing egregiousness/willfulness and enhanced damages through Seagate and Halo and re-iterating the standards discussed in Halo. In five of the seven relevant post-Halo cases the Federal Circuit remanded for further consideration in light of the new standards set forth in Halo.

On Monday, September 4th, a South Korean court denied a request made by San Diego, CA-based semiconductor developer Qualcomm Inc. to rescind a fine levied last December by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) over alleged unfair business activities in patent licensing and chip sales. According to reports, the South Korean court decision keeps in place a $912 million in the latest blow to Qualcomm’s corporate intellectual property strategy.

The Federal Circuit reversed. Indeed, it found that the Board committed legal error by improperly relying on inherency to find obviousness and in its analysis of motivation to combine the references. The court found that the Board erred in relying on inherency to dismiss evidence showing unpredictability in the art in rejecting Honeywell’s argument that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success. It referred to an earlier opinion [citations omitted] to state that “the use of inherency in the context of obviousness must be carefully circumscribed because “[t]hat which may be inherent is not necessarily known” and that which is unknown cannot be obvious.”

In Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., a district court dismissed a patent infringement complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, because the patent was drawn to patent ineligible subject matter. On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the patent “claims an improvement to computer memory systems and is not directed to an abstract idea.” Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The total number of intellectual property claims included in all commercial cases is higher than the figure of 11,643 commercial cases including at least one IP claim. “It turns out to be incredibly hard to build a Venn diagram that reflects the types of IP claims included in these commercial cases,” said Brian Howard, Lex Machina data scientist and the author of the commercial litigation report. “It turns out to be its own mini-Venn diagram within a Venn diagram, some of the cases are patent and trademark and commercial, so there’s overlap within that IP circle.” Of the different types of intellectual property claims which are included in commercial litigation, trademark claims are by far the most common, occurring in a total of 8,277 commercial cases; that’s 15 percent of all commercial cases filed since 2009. Copyright claims were brought in a total of 3,260 commercial cases filed since 2009, a total representing about 6 percent of all commercial cases. Patent claims were brought in 2,219 commercial cases, or only about 4 percent of the total.

On Monday, August 7th, a judicial panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit entered a decision in Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation which is being widely hailed by the anti-patent crowd. The three judges on the panel issued a majority opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, upheld a final written decision issued by…

The overly inclusive nature of obviousness interpretations has led to problems. First, with an overly broad view of obviousness, patent applicants are encouraged to flood patent examiners with prior art references in order to immunize prosecution from future surprises of prior art, even though many of these references are irrelevant. This flood of prior art burdens examiners and encumbers the patent prosecution process. Second, PTO examiners, PTAB judges and the federal district courts have different standards of determining obviousness, with the courts maintaining a clear and convincing standard for challenging the validity of an issued patent. For example, examiners may tend to narrow prior art to the field of an invention, thereby allowing applications that are then retested in IPRs under broader (higher bandwidth) standards, thereby explaining discrepancies in IPR claim kill rates.

Although the distinction between inherency in obviousness and anticipation is sometimes blurred, the two concepts are quite different and a claim may be inherently anticipated without being inherently obvious.  This could happen if the missing and unknown limitation were to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art, and yet not be predictedable… A major difference between having knowledge of the missing limitation versus not having it is that the knowledge can provide the motivation to combine prior art references.