Posts Tagged: "eastern district of virginia"

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which had affirmed a patent term adjustment (PTA) calculation of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2017-1357 (January 23, 2019). The Federal Circuit held that the USPTO cannot count as applicant delay any period of time during which there was no possible action that the applicant could take to reasonably conclude prosecution. A sensible ruling, and one the panel explained was entirely consistent with both the PTA statute and Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee, 778 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “A period of time including no identifiable efforts that could have been undertaken cannot be ‘equal to’ the period of failure to undertake reasonable efforts under the terms of the statute,” wrote Judge Reyna.

The Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Sharon Prost and Circuit Judges Jimmie Reyna and Kimberly Moore determined that the ITC erred in applying res judicata to deny the petition without considering the effect of district court litigation which invalidated the claims asserted in the Section 337 proceeding… Ultimately, the Federal Circuit ruled that the ITC is not barred from reassessing the EPROM factors and determining whether to modify or rescind the civil penalty based on the final judgment of invalidity. The ITC’s decision was, therefore, reversed and the case remanded for the Commission to consider whether to rescind or modify the civil penalty in light of the final judgment of invalidity of the relevant claims.

A closely watched cross-border trademark case finally has been resolved, and the results of the case have implications for global trademark holders. A  U.S. District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted Bayer AG’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing rival Belmora’s claims to the trademark FLANAX. In Mexico, Bayer uses the FLANAX mark for the popular pain medication known elsewhere as Aleve (naproxen), and successfully blocked Belmora’s attempt to market its own naproxen product under the mark FLANAX in the United States. The ruling also affirms a U.S. Trial and Appeal Board ruling that cancelled Belmora’s U.S. trademark for FLANAX, which the company secured in 2005. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had previously determined that the Lanham Act authorized Bayer’s claims against Belmora for unfair competition under §43(a) and its cancellation action under §14(3).

A group of six patent law professors filed an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diagnostics. The professors’ brief urges the Federal Circuit to reverse a finding by the lower court invalidating patents asserted by Cleveland Clinic covering diagnostic methods for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. According to the brief, the district court’s invalidation of Cleveland Clinic’s patents represents an improper application of 35 U.S.C. § 101, the basic threshold statute governing the patentability of inventions.

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.

John Thorne was VP and deputy general counsel for Verizon during its legal battle against former American cable television company Cablevision where Verizon asserted a series of patents it owned… A closer look into the patents renders some interesting information about the patents Verizon asserted and the company’s legal strategy in the case. Two of the eight patents asserted by Verizon in the District of Delaware weren’t originally invented by Verizon, Bell Atlantic or other any other of Verizon’s predecessor companies; they were acquired from outside entities… And haven’t we been told by the likes of Unified Patents that all patent owners who enforce their patents are patent trolls? One would have to assume if Unified is being logically consistent they would have extraordinary problems with Verizon’s activities particularly here where the patents used to sue Cablevision were acquired and not the subject of in-house innovation.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party waives its right to assert a defense of improper venue when it fails to raise the defense in a pleading or with other Rule 12 motions.  Importantly, however, that waiver only takes effect if the defense was “available” to the party at the time of filing either the pleading or motion.  Many circuits, including the Federal Circuit, interpret that requirement by recognizing an intervening law exception to the waiver of a defense, whereby an intervening change in law makes available a defense that had not previously been available.  Does the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland constitute a change in the law?  Was the defense of improper venue unavailable until May 22, 2017?

In Nantkwest v. Matal, the Federal Circuit reversed the Eastern District of Virginia’s denial of the USPTO’s request for attorneys’ fees in connection with Nantkwest’s district court appeal of the PTAB rejection of its patent application. At issue was the correct interpretation of Section 145 of the Patent Act, namely the language “[a]ll of the expenses of the proceeding.” The Court held that Section 145 of the Patent Act requires the appellant to pay the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees, regardless of the outcome of the case.

In two recent decisions following T. C. Heartland, district courts have applied two different methodologies in resolving motions to change venue… In the first decision a trial judge in the Eastern District of Virginia denied the venue motion, filed three days after T.C. Heartland but also on the eve of trial.  Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc. (June 7, 2017)… In the second decision, a district court in the Southern District of Ohio applied the standards in § 1400(b) and transferred the action because neither of two defendants resided in the district and neither had a permanent and continuous presence in Ohio.

About 5,100 patent infringement cases were filed in the U.S. during 2016, according to the PwC litigation study. This represents a 9 percent drop in lawsuits from 2015’s totals and the third straight year of decline since 2013, when more than 6,000 patent suits were filed. As the PwC study notes, this decline stands in stark contrast to the 6 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for patent case filings since 1991. It’s also the largest deviation between the rate of case filings and the rate of U.S. patent grants since that time.

If the Eastern District of Virginia can dispatch patent cases in less time than the PTAB, why should we suffer the indignity of the lack of due process and constitutional infirmity of an Article II tribunal striping vested property rights without much, if any, real oversight by an independent judiciary?

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to review a Federal Circuit ruling that held unconstitutional a law prohibiting registration of trademarks that “may disparage” people or groups. In a case involving an Asian-American dance band’s bid to register its name THE SLANTS as a trademark, the court will consider whether the bar on registering disparaging marks in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. In the meantime, the Court is expected to rule soon on the Washington Redskins’ cert petition in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, No. 15-1874, challenging a decision of the Eastern District of Virginia upholding the PTO’s cancellation of the REDSKINS trademarks under that same provision.

It was only going to be a matter of time before Director Lee declaring a federal holiday without any statutory authority came back to haunt the USPTO. Here the defendants were served with the complaint on December 24, 2014, which means any IPR had to be filed on or before Thursday, December 24, 2015. The defendants filed their IPR petitions on Monday, December 28, 2015. The patent owner argues in a recently filed federal complaint that the IPR petitions would be considered untimely but for Director Lee declaring December 22-24, 2015, federal holidays due to the catastrophic failure of the USPTO’s electronic filing systems.

2015 is the second straight year in which the list of top plaintiffs has been led by eDekka LLC, a patent holding company, which at times has been accused of exhibiting trolling behaviors… Atop this list was the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.), which between 2005 and 2015 has awarded more than $2.1 billion in compensatory damages over the course of 2,169 cases filed. Following behind them was the U.S. District for the Southern District of California (S.D. Cal.), U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), and followed in fourth place by E.D. Tex. Median damages for cases terminating between 2000 and 2015 showed a different story, however, as that list was topped by the District of Delaware, which had a median award of $10.46 million in 40 cases with damages. The Eastern District of Texas follows in second with a $7.68 million median damages award and in third is the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (E.D. Va.), with a median award of $2.98 million. After that, there’s a steep drop and every other district is showing a median damages award of less than $1 million.