Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

Centripetal Networks was dealt a blow by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday when the court ruled that it had failed to prove that Cisco infringed three of its patents. It’s a years-long case that the court referred to as having an “unusual history.” The district court first entered one of the highest damages awards ever issued in a patent case, following a 22-day bench trial. In an opinion authored by the late Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., the court found that Cisco willfully infringed four out of five of Centripetal’s asserted patents and awarded enhanced damages in an amount of $755,808,545 (enhanced by a factor of 2.5X), and prejudgment interest in an amount of $13,717,925, which resulted in a total past damages award amount of $1,903,239,288.

It was an overall below-average week for patent filings at both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and district courts. The PTAB had only 15 new PTAB petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs), while the district court had only 24 new complaints filed. There were two more Fintiv discretionary denials this week, with the Board denying institution of two IPRs filed by IBM against inventor-controlled DigitalDoor Inc. [funding unknown] patents broadly related to various aspects of data security technologies.

An event held Monday by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), and moderated by former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu, featured a number of high-profile political and professional figures in the intellectual property space debating approaches to strengthening the U.S. patent system, with an emphasis on national security. Representative Deborah Ross (D-NC), who serves on the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, first joined Iancu to discuss her reasons for supporting the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act.

On December 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in the ongoing patent battle between computer chip patent owner VLSI and major chipmaker Intel Corp. While the court affirmed the infringement findings underpinning the bulk of VLSI’s $2.175 billion jury verdict awarded back in March 2021, the panel ordered a retrial of damages award for one of two asserted patents and dismissed the doctrine of equivalents infringement finding for the other patent. The Federal Circuit also found that the district court abused its discretion by denying Intel’s motion for leave to add a license defense to its case.

It seems likely that Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi 598 U.S. 594 (2023) will be one of the most significant, if not the most significant Supreme Court patent decision of 2023. Its holding that a claim to a genus of antibodies must be enabled to the full scope of species within that genus was emphatic and—coming from our highest court—about as final as stare decisis can guarantee. Forty years ago, I was knee deep in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and court proceedings on behalf of laser pioneer, Gordon Gould. A 1983 decision in Gould’s favor by an appellate court effectively shut down efforts by the USPTO and laser manufacturers to derail Gould’s patent portfolio, ultimately leading to widespread licensing of Gould’s patents. But there was one point in that 1983 decision that might be viewed as inconsistent with Amgen’s holding.

Several attorneys associated with patent monetization firm IP Edge are being referred to their state disciplinary bars, the Texas Supreme Court’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Department of Justice for their conduct in directing several individuals, including a fried chicken restaurant owner and a surgical assistant, to undertake liabilities associated with patent litigation in U.S. district court without disclosing the interests of IP Edge, which stood to gain 90% of the gross recovery from the asserted patents.

It was a typical week for patent filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with 25 new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs). Meanwhile, the district courts had a somewhat above average week with 76 new complaints filed.Meanwhile, the district courts had a somewhat above average week with 76 new complaints filed. At the PTAB, Hyundai filed two new IPRs against Mel Navip LLC [associated with Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC] patents; Fortinet Inc. filed two IPRs against one Lionra Technologies [associated with Magnetar Capital] patent; and Apple filed two IPRs against DoDots Licensing Solutions [Strategic Intellectual Solutions] patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in a precedential decision today that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not lose its statutory authority to issue a Final Written Decision when it misses the 1.5-year deadline to do so, as established by the patent statute. According to the opinion, which was authored by Judge Dyk, “[t]his appears to be the only proceeding in which the Board has failed to meet the statutory deadline, and this is accordingly a matter of first impression.”

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition that asked it to consider whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) “construction of petitioner’s patent claim was unforeseeable and unjustifiable under the circuit’s prior decisions,” thereby constituting a judicial taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The petition was an appeal from the CAFC’s April decision affirming a district court’s judgment that AT&T Mobility LLC did not infringe an inventor’s wireless communications technology patent but also holding that AT&T had forfeited its chance to prove the patent invalid on appeal.

Last weekend, The Federalist Society hosted a panel as part of its 2023 National Lawyers Convention featuring in-house counsel from Google and Qualcomm, as well as two federal judges and an academic, to discuss whether U.S. law around IP injunctions is promoting or harming markets for innovators and creators. Predictably, Google’s and Qualcomm’s counsel had starkly different perspectives on that topic.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that Medtronic failed to prove the challenged claims of Teleflex’s catheter patent unpatentable. In several previous precedential decisions issued this year, the CAFC similarly upheld the PTAB’s determinations. In May, the court said that Medtronic failed to show the challenged claims of five catheter patents unpatentable because the primary prior art reference cited by Medtronic did not qualify as prior art under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) first-to-invent provisions. Judge Dyk dissented. And in June, the court found in two separate rulings issued the same day that Teleflex’s objective evidence supported a presumption of nexus, that Medtronic copied Teleflex’s product and that Teleflex’s substitute claims did not lack adequate written description.

Most patent prosecutors err on the side of caution when deciding whether to cite prior art references to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Indeed, the consequence of not citing known prior art can be a finding during patent litigation that there was a violation of the USPTO’s duty of disclosure amounting to inequitable conduct, with the patent thereby being deemed unenforceable. But the United States Court of Appeals the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems (Case 2021-1985, September 21, 2023) suggests that patent prosecutors should think about ways that the fact that references are being cited could be used against the patent owner, and prosecutors might consider clarifying the record to negate potential inferences being drawn based on the citation of references.

Following a panel that examined the international landscape for standard essential patents (SEPs), IPWatchdog’s Founder and CEO, Gene Quinn, and Chief Operating Officer, Renee Quinn, presented The Honorable Randall Rader with the IPWatchdog Masters™ Hall of Fame award and a sketched portrait to add to the Wall of Fame at IPWatchdog’s headquarters. Judge Rader served as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 1990 through 2010, and as the court’s Chief Judge from 2010-2014. He has won numerous awards and now works an arbitrator, mediator and consultant with the Rader Group. In his explanation of the origins of the IPWatchdog Masters™ Hall of Fame in 2022, Quinn said he wanted an IP Hall of Fame that included only “real IP professionals; people who mean something to me, people I want you to hear from.”

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued its one millionth design patent on September 26, 2023. U.S. Patent No. D1,000,000 claims the ornamental design for a dispensing comb. This milestone comes during a particularly prolific period for design patents. In 2022 alone, the USPTO received more than 50,000 design patent applications. The Office has seen a 20% growth in design patent applications over the last five years. It is not hard to understand why inventors are seeking design patent protection at previously unseen levels. In an age of complicated technologies, design patents can protect marketable appearances of products in the same manner generally as trademarks identify source. Understanding design patent benefits underlying the recent growth in application numbers is a good lesson for businesses seeking to distinguish a brand—but keep an eye out for further developments and be prepared to adjust business and IP strategies.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded last week to a petition for certiorari that is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that said appellate review of whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) discretionary denial rules for inter partes review (IPR) are “arbitrary and capricious” is precluded by Section 314(d) of the patent statute.