Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

On January 5, 2017, the District of Delaware issued its long-awaited decision in the patent dispute pending between Amgen and Regeneron wherein the Court granted Amgen’s request for a permanent injunction against Regeneron’s new PCSK9-inhibitor cholesterol drug. Both Amgen and Regeneron each independently spent billions of dollars over the past decade-plus developing a new class of cholesterol drug. The drug itself comprises an antibody that binds to PCSK9 proteins… Whereas Regeneron managed to be the first to market, Amgen succeeded in getting to the Patent Office first. Amgen originally sued Regeneron, along with Sanofi, its European partner, in October 2014. Amgen asserted three patents directed to antibodies that bind to PCSK9. Over the next month, Amgen commenced additional lawsuits as new patents issued from the Patent Office. The cases were eventually consolidated, but Amgen eventually went to trial against Regeneron on only two of the originally asserted patents.

For the year patent infringement cases dropped by 22 percent from the previous year, from 5,823 cases in 2015 down to 4,520 cases in 2016. 2016 actually saw the lowest number of patent infringement lawsuits filed since 2011, when 3,578 cases were filed. There was no month during 2016 where more than 460 patent suits were filed; both 2014 and 2015 had at least one month where more than 650 patent suits were filed in district court.

On December 15th, Japanese electronics conglomerate Sony Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit in U.S. district court against Japanese photography and imaging company Fujifilm. At the center of Sony’s legal action are magnetic tape products marketed by Fujifilm which allegedly practice technology copied from Sony without a license. In the official complaint filed by Sony, the company asserts a series of four patents, which it alleges Fujifilm of infringing through the sale of the company’s Linear Tape-Open (LTO) format magnetic tapes, specifically generation four, five and six LTO tapes (LTO-4, LTO-5, LTO-6).

The equitable defense of laches has been a useful tool for defendants in intellectual property litigation for over a hundred years, but a recent case in the U.S. Supreme Court could potentially remove the defense in patent infringement cases. In SCA Hygiene Products AB v. First Quality Baby Products LLC, the Supreme Court must decide whether the doctrine of laches bars patent infringement claims filed within the six-year statutory limitation period established under 35 U.S.C. § 286 of the Patent Act… Based on oral arguments, it is expected the Court will reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision and conclude that laches do not apply to patent infringement cases brought within the six-year damages period.

The Court upheld the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs, finding ample support in the record for Walker’s vexatious conduct, and no legitimate reason for Walker to continue litigating after the Agreement. Further, Walker’s arguments on appeal mischaracterized clear authority on the courts’ ability to award attorneys’ fees. The Court also sanctioned Walker and his attorneys for pursuing a frivolous appeal and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs.

A patent and copyright squabble involving two players in the networking space for information technology (IT) development, which has ramped up in recent years, saw an interesting round of events play out in federal court and regulatory agencies this past December. At the center of the brouhaha is American networking and telecommunications giant Cisco Systems (NASDAQ:CSCO) of San Jose, CA, which has filed multiple legal actions against Arista Networks (NYSE:ANET) of Santa Clara, CA, alleging that Arista has moved into the networking equipment market using technologies developed and patented by Cisco, specifically through former Cisco employees who founded Arista.

The Federal Circuit’s broad interpretation of the patent-venue statute has led to widespread forum-shopping with a disproportionate number of cases being filed in the Eastern District of Texas. For example, since 2011, roughly a quarter of all patent-infringement cases have been filed in the Eastern District, with 2015 being a peak year when 44% of all patent-infringement cases were filed. This despite the fact that the Eastern District of Texas is home to relatively few companies and home to little more than 3.5 million people. By comparison, the Northern District of California, a district with nearly 8 million people and home to many companies, only made up 4-5% of all patent-infringement filings annually.

Being targeted by PAEs is nothing new for Apple — but in an anti-trust complaint dated December 20, 2016, Apple finally said enough was enough. Pulling no punches, Apple accused the PAEs of “conspiring with Nokia in a scheme to diffuse and abuse [standard essential patents] and, as the PAEs and Nokia fully intended, monetize those false promises by extracting exorbitant non-FRAND royalties in way Nokia could not”. Using PAEs for direct attacks against Apple would be a smart, albeit sneaky, strategy for Nokia. Since PAEs do not themselves sell any products, there would be little risk of a countersuit from Apple – as well as a general lack of commitment to FRAND licensing terms that spell lower royalties.

The genesis of the patent venue “problem” is simple: Many patent infringement defendants complain about traveling to the Eastern District of Texas. They feel that it is too pro-patent, too pro-enforcement, or too difficult for defendants to win on a motion to dismiss… With the US Supreme Court agreeing to hear TC Heartland the perennial patent venue issue is front and center for patent reform in 2017. This case will attract much amicus, media, Congressional, law school, and fake news attention. It should influence how patent owners and litigation investors look at venue options in general and perhaps also with regard to growth markets like Germany and China. It will also tell us how the Trump administration thinks about patent issues.

On Thursday, December 15th, a subsidiary of Kenilworth, NJ-based pharmaceutical developer Merck & Co. (NYSE:MRK) was awarded $2.54 in royalty damages in a case involving one of the most popular available treatments for combating the hepatitis C virus (HCV). A federal jury decided that Gilead Sciences Inc. (NASDAQ:GILD), an American biotech firm headquartered in Foster City, CA, owed these royalties as a result of its infringement of patents for HCV treatments held by Merck’s Cambridge, MA-based subsidiary Idenix Pharmaceuticals. According to coverage of the verdict by Bloomberg, this $2.54 billion royalties award is the largest verdict for patent infringement in the history of the United States. The case was decided by jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (D. Del.).

Suffice it to say that 2016 has been an interesting year. The political climate is much different than one year ago amidst a growing tide of nationalism abroad and populism here in the United States. Throw in a massive migration crisis stemming from the Middle East, a slew of unexpected celebrity passings and the fact that the Chicago Cubs are lovable losers no more, and we’re about to wind down a year which seems nearly mythological in stature… As we turn the page onward to 2017, it’s a good time to take another look at some of the major trends shaping the IP and technology landscape in the United States and abroad. From increasing competition with an Asian powerhouse to the continuation of a misleading narrative about patent system abuses, the past year leaves us with many important narratives to consider for the year ahead.

Last December, the 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished Rule 84 and the Appendix of Forms, removing any doubt that Twombly’s plausibility standard applies to claims for direct patent infringement. The elimination of Rule 84 and Form 18 raised many questions about whether pleading standards for direct infringement would change and, if so, how. Over the past year, many district courts have tried to answer these questions. Below is an overview of the different conclusions reached by district courts, but first, it would be worth reviewing Federal Circuit precedent on the issue.

Tile Tech argued that a default judgment was not appropriate because the district court did not find that Tile Tech acted in bad faith. However, the Court identified the full test for default, in the Ninth Circuit, as “willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Tile Tech failed to present evidence that its dilatory actions were not its fault, i.e. outside of its attorney’s control. Therefore, the Court upheld the judgment… The Court also found the requirement to surrender “any mold, or other device, by which any [component] utilized with the [patent] was made” an acceptable means of preventing future infringement.

A district court does not have authority to issue an injunction against a party not adjudicated to be liable for infringement in the underlying case unless that party aided or abetted the liable party in the infringement, or the non-liable party is legally identified with the liable party through privity or some other means. This determination requires specific findings of fact about the parties.

This case concerns ongoing disputes between Power Integrations and Fairchild Semiconductors. The companies sued each other in Delaware, each asserting infringement of multiple patents by the other. At issue were power supply controller chips used ubiquitously in modern electronics, the patents related to those chips, and how power is supplied and regulated from the upstream source to the downstream electronic device… Induced infringement requires successful communication between the alleged inducer and the third-party infringer; it is not sufficient in itself that others directly infringed the asserted claims.