Posts Tagged: "standing"

On August 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Best Medical International, Inc. v. Elekta Inc. affirming rulings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated patent claims covering a method and apparatus for radiation therapy of tumors. The appellate court, which issued a modified version of the opinion today to correct some minor formatting problems, also determined that Best Medical International (BMI) lacked standing to appeal the PTAB’s invalidation of claim 1 of BMI’s patent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled yesterday in two precedential decisions that Moderna’s challenges to decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in favor of Arbutus both failed. The CAFC dismissed one ruling for lack of standing and in the other said Moderna’s arguments that the PTAB erred in its finding that Arbutus’ patent was not unpatentable as obvious were unpersuasive.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today dismissed Apple, Inc.’s appeal of four decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in favor of Qualcomm. The CAFC found that an April 2021 CAFC decision (Apple I) on related PTAB rulings, in which the court found Apple lacked Article III standing, controlled. The opinion for the court was authored by Judge Prost. Judge Pauline Newman dissented. In part, the court in Apple I held that a global settlement between Apple and Qualcomm on the terms of a license agreement meant that “the validity of any single patent would have no effect on Apple’s ongoing payment obligations,” and that Apple had therefore failed to establish standing under the reasoning of MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, as it asserted. The court in Apple I explained: “Ultimately, Apple’s assertions amount to little more than an expression of its displeasure with a license provision into which it voluntarily entered. Such allegations do not establish Article III standing.”

On October 27, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) cancellation of Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC’s (BBS) standard character mark and dismissed in part, affirmed in part and remanded the TTAB’s decision regarding the opposition of BBS’s mark. For over 30 years, The Brooklyn Brewery Corporation (Brewery) has used the marks BROOKLYN and BROOKLYN BREWERY in connection with the advertising, promotion, and sale of Brewery’s beer and beer-related merchandise. In 2006, Brewery registered BROOKLYN BREWERY as a federal trademark for beer in class 32.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) yesterday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that certain claims of Nike, Inc.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,598 and 8,266,749 are not unpatentable as obvious. The Court also disagreed with Nike’s argument that Adidas did not have standing to appeal because it could not prove that it had an “injury in fact.” The opinion was authored by Judge Moore.  

On May 13, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. In particular, the CAFC affirmed the District Court’s holding that Jodi A. Schwendimann was a patentee entitled to pursue infringement claims despite the patent assignment being improperly recorded at the time the infringement action was filed.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has recently issued a decision allowing an opposition proceeding to continue after finding that opposer AT&T Mobility had standing to bring the proceeding to the TTAB. Applicants Mark Thomann and Dormitus Brands had argued that AT&T Mobility did not have standing to oppose applications to register “CINGULAR” trademarks because the opposer abandoned its own marks when it changed its business name more than a decade earlier. Although AT&T Mobility has demonstrated to the TTAB its basic ability to bring claims in the opposition proceeding, Eric Perrott, trademark and copyright attorney with Gerben Law Firm, notes that the low threshold AT&T Mobility has cleared doesn’t mean that the entity will be successful on its claims.

In Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool International, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination in an inter partes reexamination that certain patent claims for two of Knauf’s patents covering fibrous products and related methods and binder and fiber glass products were obvious. The Court also found that certain other claims of the two patents were not unpatentable as obvious, and Rockwool International cross-appealed that determination, but the Court held that Rockwool did not have standing to cross-appeal and thus dismissed it. The decision was not precedential, but some have commented that the Court’s holding with respect to Rockwool’s lack of standing for a cross-appeal could have significant implications.

To seek relief in Federal Court, a plaintiff must demonstrate a personal, legally protectable interest in the outcome of the dispute for which relief is being sought, i.e., must demonstrate standing. The legally protectable interest may be under threat because of a government conduct. In patent disputes, the plaintiff may be an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner who has challenged a patent and is dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regarding upholding of patent claims by the PTAB. Here, the decision upholding the claims would be the government conduct complained of. The dissatisfied petitioner may appeal to the Federal Circuit and, to prove standing, allege that it is injured because the decision upholding the claims reduces its ability to compete with the patent owner. If the petitioner has no current interest in practicing the claims, would it have standing? No, it would not, according to the Federal Circuit in Avx Corporation v. Presidio Components, Inc. 2018-1106 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019) (“Avx Corp.”), where this scenario played out. The court explained that although “competitor standing” can be found to challenge government actions in certain situations, this was not one of them, as the petitioner was unable to demonstrate any present or nonspeculative interest in engaging in conduct even arguably covered by the claims at issue. Avx Corp. at 9.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) where the Board upheld the patentability of a biologics patent. After Momenta Pharmaceuticals petitioned the Board for an inter partes review (IPR) of the patentability of Orencia® (abatacept), the Board sustained patentability and Momenta appealed. During the course of the appeal, Momenta ceased development of an abatacept biosimilar. The Federal Circuit held that the cessation of potential infringement mooted the injury and removed Momenta’s standing to maintain the appeal. Momenta Pharm., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 2017-1694, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3786 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2019) (Before Newman, Dyk, and Chen, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the Court, Newman, Circuit Judge).

On January 11, GKN Automotive LTD. filed a brief in opposition to a petition for writ of certiorari filed by JTEKT Corporation. The question JTEKT seeks to have the Supreme Court consider is whether any inter partes review (IPR) petitioner, even a petitioner without standing, may appeal a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The standing requirement for litigants in order to gain entry to a federal court is well-established, black-letter law taught to every law student across the country. It is hardly shocking that the Federal Circuit would apply well-established Constitutional safeguards and procedural law to prevent those without appropriate grievances from entry into the federal appellate system. In this case, JTEKT simply did not have any injury, real or imagined.

Japanese manufacturer JTEKT Corporation recently filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking he nation’s highest court to determine whether federal statutes governing appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) create a right for PTAB petitioners to have an appellate court review adverse final written decisions. If the case is taken by the Supreme Court the question will be whether the AIA creates standing for any dissatisfied party to appeal a PTAB final decision. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s had decided JTEKT did not prove an injury in fact for the purposes of determining the existence of Article III standing in its appeal.

On Tuesday, November 20th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision in Google LLC v. Conversant Wireless Licensing, which vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to uphold the validity of patent claims owned by Conversant after conducting an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding petitioned by Google and LG Electronics… It is hard to reconcile decisions where the Federal Circuit bends over backwards to give more process and procedural rights to petitioners when for so long patent owners have been railroaded at the PTAB and then had those summary execution proceedings rubber stamped by the Federal Circuit. If increased scrutiny on the PTAB is a two-way street I welcome it.

U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla of the Western District of Tennessee recently issued an order denying motions made by interactive streaming music provider Spotify to dismiss a case including copyright infringement claims brought by independent music publisher and copyright administration company Bluewater Music Corporation. Judge McCalla’s order determined Bluewater has standing for all 2,142 music compositions it has asserted based on ownership or an exclusive license of the works. Given Bluewater is seeking the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work, Judge McCalla’s order allows Bluewater to continue pursuing a maximum damages award of $321.3 million.