Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

Looking back over the final few weeks of 2023, patent filings were typical at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and slightly above average in district courts, with the last weeks of the year seeing 68 district court complaints filed and 25 new PTAB petitions [December 11-17]; followed by 57 district court complaints filed and 29 new PTAB petitions [December 18-24]; and wrapped up with 24 district court complaints filed and 13 new PTAB petitions [December 25-31].

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential ruling that affirmed a district court’s denial of preliminary injunction to DexCom, Inc., holding that the language of the governing contract’s forum selection clause expressly allowed for the filing of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in certain circumstances. DexCom and Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. entered into a settlement and license agreement in 2014, following years of patent litigation over their competing glucose monitoring system patents. The governing agreement included a Covenant Period and a forum selection clause that DexCom argued was breached by Abbott’s filing of eight IPR petitions following the expiration of the Covenant Period and 10 months after DexCom filed an infringement suit against Abbott in the Western District of Texas.

On December 28, agricultural tech developer Inari filed an amicus brief  with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) urging the appellate court to deny a petition for rehearing en banc of the court’s August ruling in In re Cellect. Inari’s brief highlights that the Federal Circuit’s application of the obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) doctrine to legislatively-prescribed patent term adjustments (PTA) is critical to the success of companies like Inari who build upon technologies once patent protections expire.

Arbitration, including international arbitration, can be a beneficial tool for the enforcement of patent portfolios, license agreements and infringement disputes. When entering into agreements/licenses (including commercial supplier, distributor and partnership agreements), parties may deem it useful to include an arbitration provision to resolve any disputes arising from those agreements. As such, parties can take advantage of the numerous benefits of international arbitration in the event of a dispute relating to intellectual property, in contrast to relying on district court proceedings.

On December 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in K-fee System GmbH v. Nespresso USA, Inc., reversing a claim construction ruling and summary judgment of noninfringement issued by the Central District of California. In construing the claim term “barcode” de novo, the Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in finding that its definition expressly excluded “bit codes” in light of the patent owner’s representations during European patent opposition proceedings.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) stayed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) October 26 Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) against certain Apple Watches that the ITC found infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels. The CAFC does not appear to have published the order on its public website but it is widely available online.

In Part I of our year end summary of key developments regarding patents subject to a commitment to license on a Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) or Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) basis, we looked at various developments involving patent pools and reviewed some interesting damages awards and interlocutory decisions. In this installment, we consider a pair of antitrust cases dismissed in 2023 and explore what may come next on the policy front.

With respect to patents subject to a commitment to license on a Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) or Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) basis, 2023 saw many interesting developments. This includes several new pool-based licensing programs being launched, and others gaining traction, various interlocutory decisions, the dismissal of some antitrust suits, and, as always, the specter of possible government intervention.

Unsurprisingly, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that Stephen Thaler’s AI Machine, DABUS, cannot be granted patents for inventions it autonomously created. While the Court suggested that questions such as whether inventions like DABUS’ should be patentable and if the meaning of the term “inventor” should be expanded are important ones that should be considered at a policy level, the present case was concerned solely with the interpretation of the present law, which clearly does not contemplate non-human inventors.  

Apple confirmed to media outlets on Monday that it will halt sales of certain Apple watches following the October International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling issuing a limited exclusion (LEO) order against the products. In its October ruling, the ITC found Apple violated section 337 by importing Apple Watches that infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels.

On December 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) invalidation of ParkerVision’s patent claim to down-converting electromagnetic (EM) signals in wireless communication networks. In so holding, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s use of claim construction conflicting with parallel proceedings in the Western District of Texas on the grounds that the patentee defined the term “storage element” as a lexicographer.

On June 1, 2023, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened, providing a new venue for patent litigation across all 17 ratifying European Union member states. The court represents a significant shift in patent litigation in the EU, which is poised to impact the global patent strategy of U.S. and multinational companies. Through the European Patent Office (EPO), inventors have long been able to obtain patent protection across most of the EU through a single application. Once the EPO grants a European Patent, inventors have the option of obtaining local patent protection in any member state that they select without the need for further examination or review. However, historically, once the EPO granted a patent, there was no single enforcement or invalidation mechanism, leaving it up to the member states to enforce patent rights.

Although the proceedings before federal district courts may not garner as much attention as those of the U.S. Court of appeals for the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court, they can be an important proving ground for the decisions rendered by those courts. And 2023 was no exception to that rule. As discussed below, the Zogenix v. Apotex and Teva v. Eli Lilly decisions provide a glimpse into what litigants can expect in the aftermath of the GSK v. Teva and Amgen v. Sanofi decisions, respectively. These cases will have an especially significant impact on the life sciences industry, and watching how these decisions are applied by the district courts should be a priority for practitioners in this space.

As 2023 draws to a close, here’s a gift of five golden Federal Circuit patent cases! These decisions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) significantly impact patent practitioners in several areas, including patent prosecution, litigation, and inter partes reviews (IPRs).

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Court to reconsider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June ruling that the petitioner said signals an expanding practice of reversing agency decisions in lieu of remand. In the CAFC’s decision, the court reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judgment that affirmed patent claims in part due to the commercial success of MacNeil IP’s WeatherTech vehicle floor tray. The CAFC also affirmed a PTAB ruling that invalidated three claims of one of MacNeil’s patents in its battle with Yita LLC, a Seattle-based auto parts company.