Posts Tagged: "Judge Richard Taranto"

The key issue in the present appeal, in light of Akamai V, is whether TSA’s performance of the final two steps of the patented method claims can be attributed to Travel Sentry, such that Travel Sentry is responsible for infringing the relevant claims… Under Akamai V, direct infringement under § 271(a) occurs where all steps of a claimed method are performed by a single entity. When more than one actor is involved in practicing the steps, the court considers whether the acts of one entity are attributable to the other such that a single entity is effectively responsible for the infringement. An entity will be held responsible for another’s performance of method steps where it directs or controls that performance. This is a question of fact.

In HTC Corp. v. Cellular Communs. Equip., Appellants HTC Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (“HTC”) appeal a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in an inter partes review. The Board instituted inter partes review of challenged claims in patents owned by Appellee Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC’s (“CEE”). The PTAB concluded that HTC failed to show that any of the challenged claims were unpatentable… There is no need for the PTAB to explicitly construe claim terms if the PTAB’s findings were sufficient to establish its understanding of the scope of the claimed subject matter.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued its decision in In re Micron Tech., Inc., Case No. 2017-138 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017), and resolved a question that had divided district courts and commentators throughout the United States following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017):  Did TC Heartland change the law of venue in patent cases such that a party’s failure to raise a venue defense in its initial responsive pleading could be excused?  The Federal Circuit held: “We conclude that TC Heartland changed the controlling law in the relevant sense: at the time of the initial motion to dismiss, before the Court decided TC Heartland, the venue defense now raised by Micron (and others) based on TC Heartland’s interpretation of the venue statute was not “available,” thus making the waiver rule . . . inapplicable.”

In determining indefiniteness of a claim based on a testing method referenced in the patent, courts will evaluate whether the method is well known in the art and could reasonably be adapted for the claimed purpose. Intervening rights is an affirmative defense that may arise when claims are substantially changed after an intervening reexamination. For lost profits, a non-infringing alternative does not have to be a direct substitute; it can be an alternative in a hypothetical market absent the infringing product. Enhanced damages are discretionary and may be declined when willful infringement is not egregious, e.g. in light of its defenses and when patentee amended its claims in reexamination. Irreparable injury based on an erroneous lost profits finding will not stand. Further, a permanent injunction may be reconsidered by evaluating the sales in the actual market after the grant of an injunction.

In what appears to be a clear departure from the past, in Amgen, the Federal Circuit has rejected the test, basing its rejection on the ground that it effectively eliminates the written description requirement.  Amgen at 15, 16.  According to the Court, where a functional genus claim to antibodies to a newly characterized antigen is concerned, the underlying science is not so advanced as to establish that “make and use” is equivalent to the required description of the claimed antibodies.  Id. at 16.  Drawing such equivalence, the Court said would amount to declaring a contested scientific proposition to be so settled as to be entitled to judicial notice, which the Court was not prepared to do.  Id.

Arguing against Micron’s motion to dismiss, Harvard contended that TC Heartland only affirmed a previous precedent set by SCOTUS and that the improper venue challenge was available to Micron back when it filed its first motion in August 2016… The Federal Circuit concluded that the TC Heartland decision “changed controlling law in the relevant sense” and thus the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the patent venue statute was not available to Micron at the time of its August 2016 motion to dismiss.concluded that the TC Heartland decision “changed controlling law in the relevant sense” and thus the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the patent venue statute was not available to Micron at the time of its August 2016 motion to dismiss.

The Federal Circuit heard the case of Sanofi v. Watson Labs.. Sanofi is the owner of two patents claiming compositions and uses of the cardiovascular drug dronedarone. The ‘167 patent claims methods of reducing cardiovascular hospitalization by administering dronedarone to patients meeting specific conditions that mirror those of a clinical study conducted by Sanofi between 2005 and 2008 (“ATHENA”). The court held that the asserted claims do not exclude compositions containing polysorbate surfactants. Watson and Sandoz appealed; the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in full.

The Federal Circuit evidences a great deal of myopia to declare that these patents are not directed to a technological advance, even if they can string together citations that seem to support their sterilized findings. Shouldn’t it seem self evident in 2017 that an open payment system for processing fares on a mass transit system is a technological advance? Shouldn’t it also be equally self evident that there is nothing abstract about the tangible device used by a person who is admitted to a subway through an open payment system? And it’s hard to miss the financial reality that the funds actually do change hands and the fare is paid, isn’t it? And while the app itself may be intangible (i.e., not touchable), but the effects on commerce are very real and extremely valuable, in fact one could argue that the effects on commerce are so significant that they are enabling. By and through this innovation commerce is enabled in an efficient and transparent manner through an immediate arms length negotiation in real time. Of course it should be self evident in the digital age we find ourselves in in this 21st century economy that such an immediately enabled commercial transaction is anything but abstract, such transactions make the entire marketplace work. Indeed, so significant was this technology that Chicago Transit is paying an infringer for the service.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit entered a non-precedential decision in Art+Com Innovation Pool GmbH v. Google LLC, which affirmed a lower court’s invalidation of a patent covering methods of displaying geographic information to a user. The patent, issued in 2013 to Berlin-based Art+Com Innovationpool and claiming a priority date of December 1995, had been asserted in a patent case decided in the District of Delaware in which the German-based patent owner was seeking more than $100 million from Google for infringement committed by its Google Earth service.

In Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corp, Fast Felt sued Owens Corning for infringement, and Owens Corning filed a petition with the PTO seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7. All of the challenged claims contain the term “roofing or building cover material.” Owens Corning argued that the claims are obvious over Lassiter, Hefele, and Eaton. The Board concluded that Owens Corning failed to show obviousness of any of the challenged claims… While the preferred embodiment of a claim might focus on a particular element of the claim, this is not enough to narrow the claim scope of the IPR. The Board must still give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Where the record and a correct claim construction support only one result, reversal is warranted, without need for remand.

In Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm & Haas Co., Organik Kimya AS (“Organik”) appealed the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in two related inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings for which Organik is the Petitioner. The Patent Owner is Rohm & Haas Co. The Board sustained the patentability of the challenged claims, Organik appeals… When confronted with expert experiments and testimony, practitioners must provide sufficient evidence and argument to negate and outweigh the testimony – unsupported critiques of the expert’s methodology and challenges of relevance are insufficient.

After a panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, in Aqua Products v. Matal, Aqua requested an en banc rehearing. The USPTO Director Joseph Matal joined the appeal on behalf of the USPTO. At issue was whether the Board could place the burden of proof for patentability of amended claims on the patent owner in an IPR, and the Board’s underlying interpretation of the relevant statutes, specifically § 316(d) governing claim amendments and 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) allocating the burden of proof in an IPR… With respect to the burden of proof, the burden of persuasion for patentability of amended claims in an IPR proceeding is placed on the petitioner, not the patent owner. However, considering Judge Reyna’s concurrence, patent owners might still have the burden of production; depending on future cases.

The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision upholding the validity of two patents belonging to Intellectual Ventures (“IV”), but reversed all findings of infringement regarding one patent and remanded for further proceedings regarding the other. IV sued Motorola for infringement of two patents. The ‘144 patent relates to a file transfer system between computer devices. The ‘462 patent relates to a portable computer formed by docking a smartphone into a “shell” with a larger display and keyboard. Motorola defended the suit by arguing non-infringement and the invalidity of the patents. At separate trials, a jury found Motorola infringed both patents and failed to prove them invalid. Motorola moved for judgment as a matter of law and the district court denied both motions.

Objective indicia must be evaluated before drawing an ultimate conclusion on obviousness, but are not necessarily part of a prima facie “motivation-to-combine” analysis. To prove inequitable conduct based on failure to correct a misrepresentation, the moving party must show actual knowledge of a material misrepresentation and a deliberate failure to inform the PTO with an intent to deceive.

The district court denied a request for a permanent injunction against Metaswitch after a jury found infringement because Genband failed to establish irreparable harm. More specifically, the court found that Genband failed to establish a causal-nexus between infringement and irreparable harm, i.e. that “the patent features drive demand for the product.” The Federal Circuit remanded because this causal-nexus requirement was too stringent. The Federal Circuit explained that the court could not have confidence as to the answer to the causation question under the standard properly governing the inquiry or whether there is any independent ground for the district court finding no irreparable harm or otherwise denying an injunction.