April 2016

Pending Supreme Court Patent Cases 2016 (April 18 Update)

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

Cuozzo: Prof Mann provides his preview of the April 25 oral arguments in Cuozzo v. Lee; and Cuozzo has filed its reply brief. Neither document address my the mootness concern regarding Cuozzo’s demand for an ordinary construction of claim terms rather than their broadest reasonable interpretation.  As far as I have seen, nothing in the record suggests that a change in claim interpretation standard would alter the PTO’s determination.

Following its April 15 Conference, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a set of cases, including Vermont v. MPHJ; Limelight v. Akamai; Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition; and Tas v. Beachy. In its April 1 Conference, the Court denied cert in Retirement Capital v. US Bancorp. That case had questioned whether subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a ground specified as a condition for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2).

The only patent cases surviving the April 15 conference are (1) Interval Licensing v. Lee that asks the same question as Cuozzo: Can the Patent and Trademark Office appropriately apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in construing patent claims in post-grant validity challenges?; and (2) Medinol v. Cordis that focuses on whether “the equitable defense of laches [may be used to] bar legal claims for damages that are timely under the express terms of the Patent Act.”   Medinol is conceptually linked to the SCA Hygiene case that also raises the laches issue. The court will consider both cases in its April 22 conference and may likely couple the decision to grant/deny.  The court is also scheduled to consider Cloud Satchel (abstract idea eligibility) and Globus Medical (appellate jurisdiction) at Friday’s conference. Neither of these cases offer much hope for the respective petitioner.

In Cooper v. Lee, the US Government filed its brief opposing certiorari. The government argues that Cooper’s Article III challenge to the IPR system “lack’s merit.”

[P]atents are quintessential “public rights” whose issuance and cancellation Congress may permissible entrust to a non-Article III tribunal. . . . Pursuant to its constitutional authority to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by establishing a patent system, Congress created the PTO – an agency with “special expertise in evaluating patent applications.” Kappos v. Hyatt, 132 S. Ct. 1690 (2012). It directed that agency to issue a patent if “it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent” under standards set by federal law, 35 U.S.C. 131. Patents are accordingly rights that “exist only by virtue of statute.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 229 n.5 (1964). They “dispose of public rights held by the government on behalf of the people.” Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 849 n.2 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

The government also argues that the posture of the case lacks merits – in particular that Cooper’s collateral challenge to the procedures doesn’t work.  Cooper has argued that “inter partes review violates Article III of the Constitution by authorizing an Executive Branch agency, rather than a court, to invalidate a previously issued patent.”

Daniel Bohnen has filed a brief on behalf of UK’s Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) in support of the Sequenom v. Ariosa petition.   The brief argues that the court should look to “maintain international harmonisation in the law of patent-eligibility.”[AriosaCIPA].  More briefs in support of the petitioner are expected this week as is Ariosa’s opposition brief (if any).

Finally, Nova has filed its opposition in Dow v. Nova and is attempting to refocus attention on the merits of the indefiniteness decision rather than the procedure for reaching that decision.  The difference in question presented is interesting:

Dow: Whether factual findings underlying a district court’s determination on the definiteness of a patent claim under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 112, like a district court’s factual findings underlying construction of a patent claim, are subject to appellate review only for clear error or substantial evidence rather than de novo review.

Nova: Whether the court of appeals correctly invalidated Dow’s patent claims as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

Explaining its shift of the question, Nova argues that “Dow’s petition rests on a false premise that the Federal Circuit refuses to give deference to factual findings” that underlie the definiteness determination.  Nova is correct as to the Federal Circuit’s position — the only question here is whether the Supreme Court will order the appellate court to follow its own law in this case. [DowPetition][NovaOpposition]

The big list: (more…)

Epic Trade Secret Case Billion Dollar Verdict

Patent, ,

by Dennis Crouch

I expect that 2016 will be the year that Congress to creates a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation.  Acting in rare unanimous fashion, the Senate recently passed the Defend Trade Secret Act (DTSA) with republican leadership.  The house is expected to follow with President Obama also indicating support.  In his most recent State of the Union Address, President Obama noted that “[n]o foreign nation, no hacker, should be able to . . . steal our trade secrets.”

Meanwhile, state-law trade secret and business tort claims continue to wield power.

In Epic Systems v. Tata Group, a W.D.Wisc. jury has awarded Epic just shy of $1 billion on state-law trade-secret misappropriation, computer-fraud (trafficking in passwords under the CFAA), breach-of-contract claims, and unfair competition.  The damages included $240 million for compensatory damages and $700 million in punitive damages.

Tata Group (one of India’s largest companies) is accused of downloading documentation for hospital management software and then providing that documentation to its subsidiary Med Mantra.  This appears to be a case of exceeding authorization.  Thus, although Tata employees were permitted access the documentation, the breach came when the documentation was shared beyond what was contractually permitted.   If it collects, the verdict will more than double Epic’s annual profits.

The verdicts:

Following any post-verdict decisions, the appeal will be handled by the 7th Circuit. The damages theory of the case is tricky — it is unclear to what extent Epic should be permitted to use Wisconsin (or US) law to collect for damages either caused or felt in India.

Patent Grants 2016 Update

Patent

2016 is back-on-track in terms of patent grants.

In February I reported USPTO patent grant numbers were trending lower than the record levels set in 2014 and 2015.  However, the PTO has picked-up-the-pace and is now set to match its 2014 record of 300,000+ utility patents issued during the calendar year. During this time the number of patent examiners on staff has actually fallen from a high of over 8400 in 2015 to now around 8100.

GrantsPerYear

 

Reissues

Patent

Reissue applications have resumed their somewhat steady-state following the pre-AIA rise associated that had been associated with a counter strategy against third-party reexamination filings.

For those issued thus far in 2016, the average reissue pendency is 28 months (median 22 months).

ReissueHistogram

ReissuePatents

Judge Dyk’s Concurrence in the Denial of Rehearing En Banc in Sequenom

Patent, ,

By Jason Rantanen

In preparing for a talk on recent developments in patent law that I’m giving in a few days at the Salishan Patent Conference, I went back and reread Judge Dyk’s opinion concurring in the Federal Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc in Sequenom v. Ariosa (available here: 14-1139.Order.11-30-2015.1).  In my view, he hits the nail on the head with this one, framing the patent eligible subject matter issue as an issue of claim breadth.  I find his discussion particularly appealing because unlike many conventional critiques of the Supreme Court’s Mayo/Alice framework, Judge Dyk acknowledges that patent law is not limitless, and that patentable subject matter should not be completely unbounded, subject only to the constraints of §§ 102, 103 & 112.  Accepting this proposition frees Judge Dyk to articulate a conceptually coherent approach to patentable subject matter in the context of discoveries of natural laws, one that allows for valid claims in this space but which still imposes limits on what can be claimed.  When discovery of a natural law supplies the innovative aspect of the invention, Judge Dyk writes, claims should be limited to what the inventor has actually done:

“In my view, the breadth of the claim should be critical. Even when a patent applicant has demonstrated some particular utility for a newly discovered law of nature and reduced it to practice, the claim should be invalid unless narrowly tailored to the particular application of the law that has been developed. Claims that extend far beyond the utility demonstrated by the patent applicant and reduced to practice should be invalid, as they “too broadly preempt the use” of the underlying idea by others. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191–92, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981). But, so long as a claim is narrowly tailored to what the patent applicant has actually invented and reduced to practice, there is limited risk of undue preemption of the underlying idea. In Myriad the Court noted, 133 S.Ct. at 2120, that an example of a meritorious claim might be claim 21 of Myriad’s U.S. Patent No. 5,753,441 (“the ′441 patent”), which was not at issue in the case and which Judge Bryson discussed in his concurring opinion on our court’s decision below, Ass’n for Molecular Pathology, 689 F.3d at 1348 (Bryson, J., concurring). Claim 21 of the ′441 patent covers a method of detecting any of several specific mutations in the BRCA1 gene, newly discovered by the patent applicant and shown to increase a person’s risk of developing particular cancers, using conventional methods. See In re BRCA1 & BRCA2, 774 F.3d at 765.

This approach appears also to be supported by Morse. The Supreme Court established in Morse that the extent to which a patentee can claim is the extent to which he has actually made some concrete use of the discovery and reduced it to practice. “The specification of this patentee describes his invention or discovery, and the manner and process of constructing and using it; and his patent … covers nothing more.” Morse, 56 U.S. at 119. Limiting patentees to narrow applications they have actually developed and reduced to practice would be in keeping with Mayo ‘s commandment that “simply appending *1292 conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable.” Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1300 (emphasis added).

This proposed approach, limiting the scope of patents based on new discoveries to narrow claims covering applications actually reduced to practice, would allow the inventor to enjoy an exclusive right to what he himself has invented and put into practice, but not to prevent new applications of the natural law by others.5 This would ensure that the scope of the patent claims would not “foreclose[ ] more future invention than the underlying discovery could reasonably justify.” Id. at 1301. Limiting the scope of the patent also would avoid the problem that “the more abstractly [a process patent’s] claims are stated, the more difficult it is to determine precisely what they cover.” Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1302 (quoting Christina Bohannan & Herbert Hovenkamp, Creation without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation 112 (2012)).”

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 809 F.3d 1282, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2015).  Of course, I may be biased to agree with Judge Dyk here: I’ve long thought that Section 112(a) doesn’t do an adequate job, by itself, of limiting claim breadth. (And §112(b) only relates to claim clarity, a different issue than claim breadth.)  (c.f. fn 5 of Judge Dyk’s concurrence).

Battles between the PTO and Courts

Patent,

The dispute between the University of Alabama, Paul Bryant Jr., and Houndstooth Mafia stems from the latter’s unlicensed use of a houndstooth pattern and other ‘marks’ that relate to the University and former legendary coach Bear Bryant.

Prior to the September 2013 federal complaint, Alabama & Bryant Jr. (the heir) had previously attempted to oppose Houndstooth Mafia’s trademark registration of the mark shown below. However, in a precedential opinion the TTAB sided with the Mafia – finding that the opposers’ failed to show (a) “acquired distinctiveness in their alleged Houndstooth Pattern”; (b) likely confusion as to source or sponsorship; or (c) that the mark is disparaging. As such, the TTAB dismissed with prejudice.

HoundstoothMafia

After losing at the board, the named plaintiffs filed the aforementioned trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit.

The parties eventually settled and, as part of the consent decree, the district court ordered vacatur of the TTAB decsion.  However, the TTAB refused take any action to vacate its prior decision, writing: “The Final Consent Judgment points to no legal error in our prior decision, and we have not been alerted to any aspect of the public interest that would be furthered by vacatur and would outweigh our initial determination of the precedential value of the prior decision.”

Back in the district court, Alabama then asked for and received a new order from the district court judge — this time expressly ordering the USPTO to vacate its prior determination.  The court wrote: “In June 2015, the TTAB essentially (and inexplicably) treated the court’s Order as a request, and issued a decision refusing to comply with this court’s Order.”

The court’s February 23, 2016 order was quite specific:

Within fourteen (14) days of this order, the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is ENJOINED TO AND SHALL VACATE its July 23, 2013 Opinion on Opposition No. 91187103, and otherwise take any further action necessary to effectuate this Order and the Court’s May 27, 2014 Final Consent Judgment, including permitting the HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA & Design Application (Serial No. 77/342,852) to be registered on the Principal Register with the University as its owner.

HoundstoothMafia.

The USPTO has complied with the order.  In a March 3 order, the TTAB issued an order vacating its prior decision and ordering that the HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA mark be registered (and that its ownership be changed to Univ of Alabama). An April 5, 2016 the mark was registered.

Meanwhile . . . The USPTO has filed its notice of appeal with the 11th Circuit court of appeals its brief will be due May 3, 2016.  The agency is likely to challenge the district court’s power to order vacatur under U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994).

 

The Heavy Burden: Overcoming the Presumption Against Improper Inventorship

Patent

An important change made in the America Invents Act of 2011 was to allow patent owners to file for patent protection as patent applicants rather than relying upon sometimes uncooperative inventors to do so.[1]  However, the AIA did not make any changes to the ever-present rule that ownership stems from invention and thus initially vests in the inventors.[2]  Because ownership is tied to invention, inventorship disputes remain a part of patent law even under this new regime.

Meng v. Chu (Fed. Cir. 2016) focuses on two superconductivity patents purportedly owned by the University of Houston based upon assignment from the listed inventor Prof. Ching-Wu Chu.[3]  I discussed this case previously in my post titled: Can you Wait 20-Years to Challenge Inventorship?: In this case, Yes, Patently-O (November 15, 2012).  In its 2012 decision, the Federal Circuit rejected the lower court’s conclusion that the challenger (Meng & Hor) claims were barred by laches or equitable estoppel.[4]  A difficulty with the case is that the patents were filed in the 1980’s but did not issue until 2006 and 2010 respectively.   Meng & Hor worked with Chu during the research, but were not listed as inventors.

In the remand, the district court held an eight day bench trial on the inventorship claims and ultimately rejected both Meng & Hor’s claims – finding (1) that Meng had failed to show that her contribution exceeded the ordinary skill in the art; and (2) that Hor had not provided sufficient corroborating evidence so as to overcome the clear-and-convincing standard required for correcting inventorship. On appeal here, the Federal Circuit has affirmed.

In order to prevail on a § 256 claim, an alleged co-inventor must show that he contributed to the conception of the claimed invention and that his contribution was “not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention.” Acromed Corp. v. Sofamor Danek Grp., 253 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001). An alleged co-inventor’s testimony regarding his contribution must be corroborated, which courts assess under a “rule of reason” analysis. Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Here, the Federal Circuit reviewed the evidence presented and agreed that it was ambiguous at best. As such it was insufficient to overcome the ‘heavy burden.’

= = = = =

[1] As most patent attorneys know, the old rules provided a mechanism for an owner to file for patent protection on behalf of an uncooperative or unavailable inventor.  However, that model is different than the rights-holder filing on its own behalf.

[2] See Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp., 990 F.2d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

[3] U.S. Patent Nos. 7,709,418 (“’418 patent”) and 7,056,866 (“’866 patent”).

[4] See Hor v. Chu, No. 4:08-CV-3584, 2015 WL 269123 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2015) and Hor v. Chu, 765 F. Supp. 2d 903, 906 (S.D. Tex. 2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded, Hor v. Chu, 699 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Adding Fuel to the Bonfire of Patents

Patent,

Genetic Tech. v. Merial (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Lincoln famously explained the role of the patent system of adding “the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.”  In GTG, the court simplified the phrase by finding that genetic testing patents only value may be literally as fuel.

The decision by Judge Dyk and joined by Chief Judge Prost and Judge Taranto affirms a lower court’s dismissal on-the-pleadings of GTG’s patent infringement claim.[1]  The holding is that the claimed method for analyzing DNA for linkage disequilibrium is ineligible for as effectively claiming a law of nature.  The basic idea stems from the inventors discovery that coding regions (exons) typically correlate with “linked” certain non-coding regions (introns).

The parties agreed that claim 1 of the GTG ‘179 patent was representative for purposes of the eligibility issues. The claim encompasses methods of detecting a particularly genetic allele using the two step process of (1) amplifying and then (2) analyzing the linked intron region.

In analyzing the claims here, the court highlighted the similarity of the claims here to those in both Mayo v. Prometheus[2] and Ariosa v. Sequenom.[3]

The similarity of claim 1 to the claims evaluated in Mayo and Ariosa requires the conclusion that claim 1 is directed to a law of nature. . . .  The claim is directed to a natural law—the principle that certain non-coding and coding sequences are in linkage disequilibrium with one another. We hold that claim 1 is directed to unpatentable subject matter at the first step of the Mayo/Alice test. . . .

Claims directed to laws of nature are ineligible for patent protection when, “(apart from the natural laws themselves) [they] involve well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field.” Mayo.

We conclude that the additional elements of claim 1 are insufficient to provide the inventive concept necessary to render the claim patent-eligible.

GTG is an Australian company that had previously sued a few dozen companies for infringing the ‘179 patent. The claims have been reexamined (at Merial’s request) and patentability confirmed.

= = = = =

[1] The courts found that claims 1-25 and 33-36 of U.S. Patent No. 5,612,179 are ineligible under Section 101.

[2] Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Lab., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012)

[3] Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 726 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2013); rehearing en banc denied by Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 809 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 02, 2015); on petition for writ of certiorari (No. 15-1182, filed March 21, 2016).

Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Patent

Upcoming Events

2016 HNBA/Microsoft Intellectual Property Law Institute

Get a Job doing Patent Law                  

New Trial for False Expert Testimony

Patent

This is a troubling case involving both plaintiffs and defendants presenting false expert testimony.

Rembrandt v. J&J Vision (Fed. Cir. 2016)

On cross-examination, Rembrand’s technical expert witness Dr. Thomas Beebe “drastically” changed his testimony regarding his methodology for testing whether the accused contact lenses were “soft.”  After being called-out by the defense’s expert Dr. Christopher Bielawski, a jury found no-infringement.  Post-trial, the district court doubled-down by also granting J&Js motion for JMOL of non-infringement. Bielawski’s testimony may have been particularly damaging – with his statement:  “You should not trust Dr. Beebe, and you should throw out his testimony, not in part, but in whole. You should not trust Dr. Beebe.”

After trial, however, the Rembrandt discovered that Bielawski had testified falsely on the stand.  Although the court denied post-trial discovery on the issue, Rembrandt used Texas open records law to discover that, although Bielawski had repeatedly testified that he personally conducted XPS and SIMS testing on the products, it turned out that he did not , that he was not even qualified to conduct those tests, and that he withheld results and analysis that would have undermined his opinions.  After hearing these allegations, the district court refused to order a new trial or to re-open discovery.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded – ordering a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(3) which permits relief from final judgment based upon “fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.”

Here, the appellate panel found that Bielawski’s false testimony prevented Rembrandt from “fully and fairly presenting its infringement case. The verdict was irretrievably tainted by Dr. Bielawski’s false testimony and Dr. Bielawski’s and JJVC’s withholding of relevant documents.”  The court also found that the false testimony could be attributable to J&J even without a ‘fraud’ finding because 60(b)(3) is operable even in the case of “accidental omissions” and does not even require “proof of complicity” (under 11th Circuit law).

Remanded for new trial.

= = = =

Judge Stoll wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Judge Moore.

Writing in dissent, Judge Dyk disagreed on both of the major issues decided by the majority.  In particular, the dissent argues that the patentee shouldn’t get another shot because, even without the misconduct it failed to prove infringement (since its expert testimony was struck).

Rembrandt has failed to show how knowledge of Dr. Bielawski’s misconduct would have changed its approach to the “soft” limitation. The JMOL was based entirely on the exclusion of Dr. Beebe’s testimony because of his “abrupt and still unexplained implosion [on the stand]” that “led to the derailment of the trial” on the softness issue.

In addition to not being material, Judge Dyk also argues that the fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct must be attributable to the party (rather than merely to a witness).  The usual rule, according to Judge Dyk, is that false statements by expert witnesses are not attributable to the parties unless the false statements were known to be false by the party who hired the expert.

= = = = =

 

 

Cardpool: Amending Claims in Reexam after Court Judgment of Invalidity

Patent, , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The timing of a settlement is sometimes really important for patentees — especially if a court is about to find your patent invalid.

Slightly complex story: In Cardpool v. Plastic Jungle, the district court ruled on summary judgment that Cardpool’s gift-card-exchange patent claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 and dismissed the case with prejudice. U.S. Patent No. 7,494,048.  That decision was initially affirmed by the Federal Circuit in a R.36 Judgment Without Opinion. Shortly thereafter, however, the USPTO issued a reexamination certificate finding the claims (as amended in reexam) patentable (of course, the PTO did not consider eligibility but only novelty and nonobviousness).

The timing of the reexamination certificate gave Cardpool the opportunity to request rehearing from the Federal Circuit. The appellate court agreed and vacated its prior summary affirmance (although not the district court’s opinion) and remanded to the district court to consider the impact of the reexamination changes.

The parties apparently came to some agreement and thus on remand the parties jointly moved for the district court to vacate its invalidity judgment since the claims had been amended and since the PTO certificate issued before the appellate mandate. See Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

However, the district court rejected the plea for vacatur — finding that the PTO decision does not “displace a district court judgment” and that it would be “against the public interest” to allow a patentee to overcome an invalidity judgment simply by “amending its invalid claims.”

No Vacation: Now, on appeal again, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the lower court ruling that vacatur is not necessary or proper:

The Supreme Court counsels that “vacatur must be decreed for those judgments whose review is . . . ‘prevented through happenstance’—that is to say, where a controversy presented for review has ‘become moot due to circumstances unattributable to any of the parties.’” U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 23 (1994).

Here, the mootness is due to amendments made by the patentee.  As such, the appellate court refused to vacate the district court judgment.

= = = = =

Res Judicata: What is unclear here is the level of claim & issue preclusion that will apply going forward when Cardpool asserts the patent against some third party.  Claim 1 was found invalid by a final judgment. However, Claim 1 has now been amended.   Could Cardpool sue Plastic Jungle (or its assigns) on the revised Claim 1?  Could Cardpool sue an unrelated alleged infringer? Writing for the majority, Judge Newman suggests (but does not hold) that Cardpool will be able to do so:

On the facts and procedures of this case, the issue of validity of the reexamined claims remains to be addressed in any future proceeding. In the initial proceeding the original claims were adjudicated only on the ground of subject matter eligibility under section 101. As in Aspex, the effect of a prior judgment rendered on specific issues as applied to the original claims, depends on the facts and issues of the reexamination, and invokes equity as well as law.

I pulled-up the reexamined claims and found that they were extensively amended to require that the method be computer-implemented using a processor, computer program, data requests, validation process by the processor, etc.  I would be truly surprised, if these amendments are sufficient to overcome the Alice Corp. test for eligibility (as implemented).

 

An Early Review of the Impact of Form 18’s Elimination on Pleading Direct Infringement

Patent, , ,

Guest Post by Leeron Morad & Andrew J. Bramhall of Quinn Emanuel[i]

Introduction

On December 1, 2015, as part of a sweeping set of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 84 and its Appendix of Forms were abrogated.  Patent litigators are no doubt well acquainted with Form 18, which set forth a generic complaint for patent infringement.  Under the guise of notice pleading, the Form 18 complaint recited only the most basic factual allegations: it did not identify any asserted patent claims or any specific accused product models, nor provide an explanation of how those products allegedly infringe.  Nevertheless, a direct infringement claim could survive a motion to dismiss simply by complying with Form 18.[ii]

As the effective date for the new amendments approached, practitioners began to consider how Form 18’s elimination might affect the pleading of direct infringement.  In particular, they questioned whether newly filed claims would be analyzed under the “plausibility” standard established by the Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal[iii] and thus would require “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”[iv]  The possibility of a heightened pleading standard caused a considerable spike in the filing of complaints in the days leading up to December 2015: more than 250 patent infringement complaints were filed on November 30 alone.[v]

Early indications from the few issued district court decisions interpreting the amended Rules confirm that the pleading standard for direct infringement claims may indeed have changed.  In this article, we look at two decisions applying the amended Rules—one from the District of Delaware and the other from the Central District of California—that provide an interesting glimpse of what may or may not suffice when pleading direct infringement today.

Case 1: RainDance Techs. Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., No. 15-cv-00152, Dkt. 28 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016). [RainDance Decision]

In RainDance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., Judge Andrews of the District of Delaware granted 10x Genomics’ motion to dismiss RainDance’s and the University of Chicago’s claims for direct infringement of seven patents, finding that “Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged any infringement.”[vi]  RainDance and the University of Chicago (collectively, the RainDance Plaintiffs) filed their original complaint against 10x Genomics in February 2015, and then filed an amended complaint in April 2015.  10x Genomics filed its motion to dismiss in May 2015, arguing (among other things) that the direct infringement claim fell short of the plausibility standard of Twombly and Iqbal.[vii]

The level of detail in the RainDance Plaintiffs’ complaint, which clocked in at 35 pages, almost certainly would have passed muster under Form 18.  For each of the seven asserted patents, the RainDance Plaintiffs identified a representative claim that they alleged had been directly infringed.[viii]  They also identified 10x Genomics’ accused product—a microfluidic DNA and RNA analysis platform—as well as the specific platform components implicated by the alleged infringement.  As support for their allegations, the RainDance Plaintiffs included figures from 10x Genomics’ conference presentations describing the accused platform’s structure and its chemical workflow, as well as excerpts from 10x Genomics’ website.[ix]

Judge Andrews, however, found the RainDance Plaintiffs’ amended complaint lacking.  He first noted that, despite the complaint’s length, the “essential factual allegations d[id] not take up much space.”[x]  He took issue in particular with the RainDance Plaintiffs’ reliance on 10x Genomics’ promotional materials, adding that it did not appear the plaintiffs had “purchased one of [10x Genomics’] products to see how it actually works.”[xi]  Judge Andrews also noted that the RainDance Plaintiffs filed the complaint “less than a month” after first learning about the 10x Genomics platform, suggesting they might have benefited from spending more time investigating the accused product before filing suit.

In assessing the adequacy of the direct infringement allegations, Judge Andrews also performed his own analysis of the exemplary patent claims identified in the complaint.  He appeared to be searching for express factual allegations tying each asserted claim limitation to the accused products in a way that bridged the gap between technical claim language and the accused features.[xii]  For example, Judge Andrews concluded that the complaint failed to address the “adjusting pressure” limitation of one asserted method claim: “[t]here is nothing in the complaint (at least so far as I can see) that hints at the role of pressure in Defendant’s products.”[xiii]  In reference to a different asserted claim, he likewise noted that “[i]t is not obvious to me that what Plaintiffs described is an ‘autocatalytic reaction.’”[xiv]  He ultimately determined that the RainDance Plaintiffs “ma[d]e no attempt to relate any of their factual assertions with any of the asserted claims” and dismissed the direct infringement claim as not plausibly alleged.[xv]

It is noteworthy that although the RainDance Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in April 2015—nearly eight months before the new amendments went into effect—Judge Andrews chose “to apply the post-December 1, 2015, direct infringement pleading standard to the amended complaint” because “it would be in the interest of justice” to do so.[xvi]  He did not, however, explain his reasoning for this conclusion or give an indication of whether he would come to the same conclusion in other already pending cases.

Case 2: InCom Corp. v. The Walt Disney Co., No. 15-cv-3011, Dkt. 26 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016). [InCom Decision]

In contrast to Judge Andrews’ decision in RainDance, Judge Gutierrez’s decision in Incom Corp. v. The Walt Disney Co. provides an example of what at least one court considers to be sufficient to plead direct infringement under the amended Rules.[xvii]  InCom filed its original complaint on April 22, 2015, and an amended complaint seven months later on Nov. 23, 2015, alleging infringement of three patents related to tracking systems using Radio Frequency Identification.  Like the RainDance plaintiffs, InCom identified specific accused products in the complaint—namely, Disney’s attendance tracking device, “MagicBand,” and the “MyMagic+” attendance monitoring system.  On December 10, 2015, not long after the new amended Rules went into effect, Disney moved to dismiss InCom’s amended complaint, arguing that it did not plausibly allege a claim for direct or indirect infringement.

Judge Gutierrez denied Disney’s motion to dismiss to the extent it sought to dismiss InCom’s direct infringement claims.  As in RainDance, he first rejected InCom’s argument that the amended Rules should not apply because it filed the complaint before their effective date, December 1, 2015.[xviii]  Citing the Supreme Court’s order adopting the amended Rules, which stated that the amendments should apply “insofar as just and practicable [in] all proceedings then pending,” Judge Gutierrez held that it was appropriate to require InCom to meet the “plausibility” standard in its amended complaint.[xix]

Even under the heightened pleading standard, however, Judge Gutierrez held that InCom’s amended complaint sufficiently pleaded a direct infringement claim.  While acknowledging that “merely naming a product and providing a conclusory statement that it infringes a patent is insufficient to meet the ‘plausibility’ standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal,” he found that InCom had done enough “by specifically identifying Defendants’ products and alleging that they perform the same unique function as Plaintiff’s patented system.”[xx]  In particular, Judge Gutierrez emphasized that InCom “describe[d] how its Attendance Tracking System uses RFID technology and ID badges to track human presence in large volumes,” and “name[d] specific products developed, manufactured and used by Defendants which, like Plaintiff’s system, track human presence in large volumes.”[xxi]

Notably, in contrast with Judge Andrews, Judge Gutierrez did not require InCom to identify any exemplary asserted claims in its complaint, much less conduct any element-by-element analysis.  Despite these missing details, he concluded that “[a]t this stage, it is sufficient that Plaintiff has made plausible allegations that each Defendant is responsible for direct infringement.”[xxii]  In comparison with the RainDance decision, the InCom decision therefore appears to establish a lower threshold for “plausibly” alleging direct infringement under the amended Rules.

Conclusion

These two early decisions, while by no means definitive of the pleading standards under the amended Rules, suggest that patent plaintiffs were right to be concerned about a heightened requirement for pleading direct infringement.  Because the amendments only went into effect fairly recently, however, only time will tell whether other district courts will apply the “plausibility” standard to direct infringement claims as well.  It also remains possible that, despite the abrogation of Rule 84 and the Appendix of Forms, some courts may find that compliance with Form 18 is still enough to survive a motion to dismiss.[xxiii]

Yet even under the heightened “plausibility” standard, we would not be surprised to see meaningful differences emerge in the ways different districts—and even individual judges within districts—apply that standard to direct infringement claims.  The decisions discussed in this article suggest such a trend: one seems to demand allegations that directly tie the claim language to the accused product, whereas the other accepts general discussion of the patented invention without the identification of any asserted claims.

Before filing suit, litigants should be mindful of these differences, lest they be faced with the prospect of having to amend and re-file their complaint—or perhaps worse.  Indeed, it would be prudent for would-be plaintiffs to closely follow this area of law in the year to come, as it appears Form 18’s elimination is already changing how patents are litigated.  Finally, existing plaintiffs should be aware that merely filing a complaint prior to December 1, 2015—even many months before that date—does not guarantee application of the Form 18 pleading standard.

= = = = =

[i] Leeron Morad is an associate and Andrew Bramhall is a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Silicon Valley office.  The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

[ii] In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

[iii] Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

[iv] Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554-55, 570.

[v] Based on a Docket Navigator search of cases filed on November 30, 2015.  By comparison, in the entirety of 2015, plaintiffs filed approximately 5,500 new patent cases.  The filing of 250 cases represents almost 5% of the total for the year.  http://www.law360.com/articles/755311/how-2015-s-crush-of-patent-lawsuits-kept-ip-attys-busy.

[vi] Case No. 15-cv-00152, Dkt. 28, at 5 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016).

[vii] According to 10x Genomics, the “plausibility” pleading standard should apply to the RainDance Plaintiffs’ direct infringement claim because pleading is governed by regional circuit law in the Third Circuit.  Id., Dkt. 16, at 14-17.  10x Genomics also argued that the “plausibility” standard should apply because Form 18 was expected to be abrogated “during the early stages of this case.”  Id. at 17.

[viii] E.g., id., Dkt. 12 ¶ 26.

[ix] Id. ¶¶ 16-20.

[x] Id., Dkt. 28, at 1.

[xi] Id. at 3.

[xii] See id. at 4 (“The requirements of the next to last element might be met, but involves quite a bit of supposition.  I think, but am not sure, that partitioning samples is the same as amplification. . . .”).

[xiii] Id. at 3.

[xiv] Id. at 4.

[xv] Id.  Judge Andrews dismissed the complaint without prejudice, however, because “Plaintiffs might very well be able to [plausibly allege infringement],” and gave the RainDance Plaintiffs three weeks to re-file.  Id. at 5.

[xvi] Id. at 4-5.

[xvii] Case No. 15-cv-3011, Dkt. 39 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016).

[xviii] Id. at 3.

[xix] Id. at 3-4 (quoting Supreme Court of the United States, Order Regarding Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Apr. 29, 2015)).

[xx] Id. at 4.

[xxi] Id.

[xxii] Id. at 5.

[xxiii] According to the Committee Notes to the amended Rules, “[t]he abrogation of Rule 84 does not alter existing pleading standards or otherwise change the requirements of Civil Rule 8.”  It seems possible that a court could interpret this as intending to maintain the notice pleading standard for direct infringement claims.

Defend Trade Secret Act Moving Forward

Patent, , ,

by Dennis Crouch

I am always amazed how gridlock is pushed aside to implement intellectual property laws.  In a unanimous vote yesterday, the Senate passed the Defend Trade Secret Act (DTSA, S. 1890) that would create a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation and provides for damages and injunctive relief (including a seizure order to prevent dissemination).  Neither Senators Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders voted.  The identical bill H.R. 3326 is pending in the House of Representatives and includes 127 co-sponsors (mostly Republican).  President Obama has announced his support as well.

From Senator Hatch:

Trade secrets–such as customer lists, formulas, algorithms, software codes, unique designs, industrial techniques, and manufacturing processes–are an essential form of intellectual property. Other forms of intellectual property, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks, are covered by Federal civil law. Trade secrets, by contrast, are the only form of U.S. intellectual property where the owner does not have access to a Federal civil remedy for misuse or misappropriation. As a result, billions of dollars each year are lost to trade secret theft, which stifles innovation by deterring companies from investing in research and development. Currently, the only Federal vehicle for trade secret protection is the 1996 Economic Espionage Act, which makes trade secret theft by foreign nationals a criminal offense. But this remedy criminalizes only a small subset of trade secret theft and relies on the thinly stretched resources of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute such offenses. . . . State laws today are perhaps even more variable in their treatment of trade secrets than they were at the time the Uniform Trade Secrets Act was proposed in 1979. This next mixed bag of differing legal regimes forces victims of trade secret theft to wade through a quagmire of procedural hurdles in order to recover their losses. . . . Put simply, State law is designed for intrastate litigation and offers limited practical recourse to victims of interstate trade secret theft–the contrast between intrastate and interstate. Maintaining the status quo is woefully insufficient to safeguard against misappropriation. U.S. companies must be able to protect their trade secrets in Federal court.

Most trade secret cases involve former employees who take knowledge with them as they move to a new venture.  The bill apparently includes minor safeguards for whistle-blowing employees and bar a court from preventing a person from moving to a new job. However, as far as I know, no employee groups have supported the Bill.

More info: 

Misappropriation is defined as “(A) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (B) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who–(i) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; (ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the knowledge of the trade secret was–(I) derived from or through a person who had used improper means to acquire the trade secret; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or (iii) before a material change of the position of the person, knew or had reason to know that–(I) the trade secret was a trade secret; and (II) knowledge of the trade secret had been acquired by accident or mistake.”

Improper means “(A) includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means; and (B) does not include reverse engineering, independent derivation, or any other lawful means of acquisition.”

 

 

Effective Date: The amendments shall apply with respect to any misappropriation of a trade secret for which any act occurs on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Not Intellectual Property: The new trade secrecy law “shall not be construed to be a law pertaining to intellectual property for purposes of any other Act of Congress.”  Thus, for example, the bankruptcy IP exception 365(n) would not apply to licenses of trade secret information.

Again with the Redundancy: Although MPHJ’s claim might be obvious, HP can’t pursue that argument

Patent, , ,

HP v. MPHJ (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Over the past few years, MPHJ has raised the ire of many with its enforcement campaign of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,381.  The claims seemingly cover HP’s multi-function scanner-printers that can be configured to email the scanned documents.  However, rather than suing HP for infringement, MPHJ sent letters to tens of thousands of businesses who HP printers seeking royalties.  A number of states took direct action against MPHJ, including Vermont and Nebraska.

HP’s response to this was to file an inter partes review proceeding challenging all 15 claims of the ‘381 patent.  IPR2013-00309.  The PTAB largely sided with HP – finding 14 of the claims unpatentable, but confirmed the patentability of claim 13.  HP appealed on claim 13, but the Federal Circuit has affirmed the Board ruling.

HP challenged claim 13 on both obviousness and anticipation grounds. However, the Board refused to institute review on the obviousness grounds — seeing that ground a ‘redundant’ to the two counts of anticipation.  The unique aspect of claim 13 is that it requires a “list of available module means for maintaining a registry” (e.g., “input, output, and process modules”).  This list was not found in either of the two separate anticipation references (Cotte or SJ5) as such, the Board found no anticipation. 

As a question of fact, an anticipation conclusion by the Board is given substantial deference on appeal and will be affirmed if “a reasonable mind might accept the evidence presented as sufficient to support the finding.” Here, the appellate panel agreed that at least some evidence supported the conclusion that the element was missing from the prior art since HP was “unable to specify” how the required list was disclosed in the prior art.

HP also challenged the Board’s refusal to institute on obviousness grounds and its failure to explain its redundancy conclusion.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit refused to address that issue — finding that appellate review of the institution decision is barred by statute.

Allowing an APA challenge to the Board’s decision to institute on the basis that the Board had insufficiently articulated its reasoning would eviscerate § 314(d) by allowing substantive review of the institution decision. Although there is a strong presumption of judicial review of administrative action, that presumption may be overcome where “there is persuasive reason to believe that such was the purpose of Congress.” Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986). Congress, through § 314(d), has explicitly stated that the Board’s institution decision “shall be final and nonappealable.” Thus, that specific statutory language precludes our review.

It is unclear to me at this point whether Claim 13 is valuable – i.e., do the current HP models infringe? I guess that we’ll see.

 

= = = = =

MPHJ’s case against Vermont is still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

= = = = =

The court here did not address how HP had standing to appeal, from the briefs neither party addressed that issue as well.

Pharma Looks to Limit Activis-Style Antitrust Liability to Only Reverse Payments

Patent

by Dennis Crouch

As part of a litigation settlement agreement, GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”) granted an exclusive generic marketing license to the challenger Teva for sales of lamotrigine and also agreed not to introduce its own competitive ‘authorized generic’ version. The question in the case, now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether that license structure can raise a plausible antitrust claim under F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013).

Following the settlement a set of direct purchasers (including King Drug) filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the exclusive license settlement was anticompetitive and in violated Sections One and Two of the Sherman Act.  The N.J. Federal District Court sided with GSK/Teva and dismissed the case after interpreting the Actavis rule-of-reason approach to apply only to actual monetary reverse payments.  On appeal, however, the Third Circuit reversed – finding that the exclusivity (including the authorized-generic restriction) should be subjected to a full rule-of-reason analysis to consider the harm done to consumers.[1]  The court wrote: “we think that a no-AG agreement, when it represents an unexplained large transfer of value from the patent holder to the alleged infringer, may be subject to antitrust scrutiny.”

In its petition for writ of certiorari, GSK asks the following question:

Whether the Third Circuit’s sweeping holding that a patentee’s grant of an exclusive license must undergo antitrust scrutiny by courts and juries – even though such a license is specifically permitted under the patent laws – is inconsistent with this Court’s decision in Actavis and decades of this Court’s earlier precedents.[2]

Here, the contracting parties argue that the right to exclusively license a patent is a fundamental aspect of the bundle-of-rights associated with a patent and guaranteed by the Constitution, federal common law, and by statute.[3]  Further, GSK argues that these rights should be seen as “exceptions” to the monopoly laws even if they might restrict competition in the short-term and are simply “not subject to antitrust challenge.”

This will be an interesting case to follow. Kirkland & Ellis Supreme Court lawyer Jay Lefkowitz filed the petition with Bruce Gerstein on the other side. At the petition stage, briefs have also been filed by the Generic Pharmaceutical Association PhRMA, WLF, and the Nat’l Assn of Manufacturers.

= = = = =

[1] King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015).

[2] Supreme Court Docket No. 15-1055.

[3] 35 U.S.C. § 261 (patent holder “may … grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States”).

Event: Intellectual Property in the Supreme Court

Patent

Call-In Now: (888) 752-3232.

I’m looking forward to the Federalist Society teleforum this Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm EST on the topic: Intellectual Property in the Supreme Court.  I will be moderating. Speakers include Garrard Beeny who is a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell and co-counsel for both Cuozzo and Stryker; and Matthew Hellman who is a partner at Jenner & Block and co-counsel for Wiley & Sons in Kirtsaeng.  The one-hour audio-only program will include time for Q&A.

No registration necessary, just call in at 2:00 pm to: (888) 752-3232. More details here.

Chao & Mapes: An Early Look at Mayo’s Impact on Personalized Medicine Patenting

Articles and Publications, Journal

Many predicted that the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Mayo v. Prometheus would have a major impact on the patenting of personalized medicine inventions, such as those at issue in Sequenom. In their Patently-O Patent Law Journal essay, Professor Bernard Chao and Amy Mapes (Denver ’17) take a look at the data:

The percentage of office actions that contain § 101 subject matter eligibility rejections abruptly increased after Mayo [for Personalized Medicine patent applications]. . . . The percentage of such rejections then continued to gradually increase every year until last year. . . . Mayo has significantly increased patent eligibility rejection rates at the patent office for at least one class of patents.

Chao & Mapes present this early look as a mechanism for providing some context for the Sequenom v. Ariosa case whose petition for writ of certiorari is pending before the United States Supreme Court.

Read the Article: Bernard Chao and Amy Mapes, An Early Look at Mayo’s Impact on Personalized Medicine, 2016 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 10.

Pending Supreme Court Patent Cases 2016 (April 1 Update)

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

Design Patent Damages: The Supreme Court has granted Samsung’s petition for writ of certiorari on the issue of design patent damages under 35 U.S.C. 289.  The statute allows for disgorgment of the infringer’s “total profit,” but the question is total-profit-as-to-what? Certainly not the entire company. The Federal Circuit has ruled that the total profit applies to the article of manufacture (here a mobile phone) while Samsung argues that the profit should be reduced to the profits associated with the component at issue (the screen). The Supreme Court rejected the second proposed issue of design patent scope.

No Standing for Cuozzo?: I wrote some about the standing and appellate jurisdiction issue in Cuozzo earlier this week.  [Link].  Up to now, Cuozzo has not explained how a Phillips claim construction would impact the outcome of its inter partes review.  Cuozzo’s reply brief may address that issue – either way they almost have to come-up at oral arguments under questioning from Justice Breyer or Justice Sotomayor.

Post Sale Restraints: A key new petition was filed in Impression Products v. Lexmark on the issue of patent exhaustion and the extent that a manufacturer can rely upon patent rights to create post-sale use requirements and restrictions and limits on international trade. [Link]. In Sequenom, v. Ariosa, the court is subtly asked to reconsider and scale-back the language of Mayo v. Prometheus.  The petition actually asks the court to stop mis-interpreting Mayo. [Link].  Vehicle Intelligence and Safety as well as Cloud Satchel also raise Section 101 challenges, but those cases are battling long odds.

Reviewing a Jury Verdict of Definiteness: New petition Dow v. Nova raises the interesting question regarding the standard for appellate review of factual findings that serve as the underlying basis for a definiteness determination. Based upon a logical extension of Teva v. Sandoz, those factual findings should be given deference even though the ultimate determination of definiteness is a question of law.  An important distinction from pure claim construction is that (as here) juries may be tasked with the job of ruling whether a claim is indefinite.  In that situation, the juries do not separate their factual conclusions from legal conclusions creating some amount of confusion.  The original Federal Circuit opinion cited to Teva, but not for its holding regarding deference. I would not be surprised by a GVR order from the Supreme Court asking the Federal Circuit to reconsider based upon that holding. [DowPetition].

Flexible Obviousness Test Does Not Apply to Secondary Indicia of Nonobviousness: In Cubist Pharma v. Hospira, the petitioner-patentee challenges the Federal Circuit’s increasingly bright line limits on secondary indicia of nonobviousness.  How do those limits mesh with the flexible doctrine outlined in Section 103 and explained by Deere and KSR.  [CubistPetition].

Did the AIA Shrink Federal Circuit Appellate Jurisdiction?: Finally, in Globus Medical, the question focuses on Federal Circuit jurisdiction over appeals in former-patent-cases, but where the only issue appealed is a non-patent issue.  This same issue was previously decided in favor of Federal Circuit jurisdiction. However, the AIA modified the language of the Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction statute and opened the door to a re-visitation.  28 U.S.C. 1292.  However, the argument barely carries the weight of its linguistics if that.

Previously, the Federal Circuit had appellate jurisdiction over cases if the district court’s jurisdiction could at least in-part be traced to 28 U.S.C. 1338 (giving district court’s jurisdiction over patent cases). The AIA amended the statute to give appellate jurisdiction to the Federal Circuit in any “civil action arising under” the patent laws.  Since appellate jurisdiction ordinarily attaches at the notice-of-appeal filing stage, Globus Medical argues that former patent cases no longer “arise under” the patent laws once final judgment is issued and no patent questions are appealed.

Denials: Cert was denied in Daiichi Sankyo v Lee (term adjustment); ParkerVision (standard for setting aside jury verdict based upon errors in expert testimony); Biogen (district court jurisdiction over interferences post-AIA); Morales v. Square (eligibility); Joao Bock v. Jack Henry (eligibility); and BriarTek v. DeLorme (USITC preclusion issue).

The big list:

1. Petitions Granted:

2. Petitions Granted with immediate Vacatur and Remand (GVR)

3. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Pending:

  • Indefiniteness: The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada), et al., No. 15-1160 (standard for appellate review of jury verdict of definiteness that is inherently based upon the jury’s factual findings) [DowPetition]
  • Exhaustion: Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 15-1189 (unreasonable restraints on downstream uses)
  • Obviousness: Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 15-1210 (bright line limits on secondary indicia of nonobviousness) [CubistPetition]
  • Infringement by Joint Enterprise: Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 15-993 (can a defendant be held liable for the collective performance of method steps by multiple independent parties?)
  • Post Grant Admin: Versata v. SAP, No. 15-1145 (scope of CBM review)
  • Post Grant Admin: Cooper v. Lee, No. 15-955 (whether IPRs violate Separation of Powers; two amici now filed in support)
  • Post Grant Admin: Click-to-Call Tech, LP v. Oracale Corp., No. 15-1014 (Same questions as Cuozzo and now-dismissed Achates v. Apple)
  • Post Grant Admin: GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., No. 15-1075 (Flip-side of Cuozzo: Can there be no appeal when the PTAB exceeds its authority by terminating an instituted IPR proceeding?)
  • Post Grant Admin: Interval Licensing LLC v. Michelle K. Lee, No. 15-716 (Can the Patent and Trademark Office appropriately apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in construing patent claims in post-grant validity challenges?)
  • Post Grant Admin: Stephenson v. Game Show Network, LLC, et al., No. 15-1187 (is BRI proper for IPR validity challenges?; Same as Cuozzo) [GameShowNetworkPetition]
  • Laches: Medinol Ltd. v. Cordis Corporation, et al., No. 15-998
  • Laches: SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag, et al. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al., No. 15-927 (three amici filed in support)
  • Biologics Notice of Commercial Marketing: Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., et al., No. 15-1039 (Does the notice requirement of the BPCIA create an effective six-month exclusivity post-FDA approval?) (cross-petition asks for recourse on failure to dance).
  • Design Patents: Systems, Inc. v. Nordock, Inc., No. 15-978 (design patent damage calculations – similar issues as Samsung v. Apple)
  • Inducement: Life Technologies Corporation, et al. v. Promega Corporation, No. 14-1538 (whether an entity can “induce itself” under 271(f)(1))(CVSG, awaiting government brief)
  • Preclusion or Jurisdiction: Vermont v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, No. 15-838 (Federal court jurisdiction in anti-troll consumer protection case)
  • Preclusion or Jurisdiction: Globus Medical, Inc. v. Sabatino Bianco, No. 15-1203 (Appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit) [GlobusMedicalPetition]
  • Eligibility Challenges: Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 15-1182 (scope of the natural phenomenon eligibility exclusion)
  • Eligibility Challenges: Retirement Capital Access Management Company, LLC v. U.S. Bancorp, et al., No. 15-591 (Whether subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a ground specified as a condition for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2))
  • Eligibility Challenges: Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., No. 15-1062 (natural phenom case of tailoring a diet to a pet’s genomic characteristics)
  • Eligibility Challenges: Cloud Satchel, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., et al., No. 15-1161 (abstract idea eligibility) [CloudSatchelPetition]
  • Eligibility Challenges: Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al., No. 15-1201 (abstract idea eligibility) [VehicleIntelligencePetition]
  • Damages: Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 15-635 (Stryker/Halo follow-on – potential wait-and-see)
  • Damages: WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, No. 15-1085 (consequential lost-profit damages for infringement under Section 271(f))
  • Written Description: Tas v. Beach, No. 15-1089 (written description requirement for new drug treatments)

4. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Denied or Dismissed:

  • Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. v. Michelle K. Lee, No. 15-652 (Patent Term Adjustment – whether the 180 day deadline applies; could bleed into admin law issues)
  • Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 15-1092 (“Whether and under what circumstances an inconsistency in expert testimony permits a court to set aside a jury verdict and grant the losing party judgment as a matter of law.”)
  • Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., No. 15-974 (defining an abstract idea)
  • Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, et al., No. 15-607 (Whether AIA eliminated federal district courts’ jurisdiction over patent interference actions under 35 U.S.C. § 146.)
  • BriarTek IP, Inc. v. DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc., et al., No. 15-1025 (Preclusive impact of ITC consent judgment).
  • Morales v. Square, No. 15-896 (eligibility under Alice)
  • ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 15-639 (what happens with a finally-determined permanent injunction after PTO cancels the patent claim?)
  • Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., No. 15-725 (Claim Construction: whether there a strong presumption against construing terms as subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112p6 that do not recite the term “means.”)
  • Alexsam, Inc. v. The Gap, Inc., No. 15-736 (appellate jurisdiction over patents that were dropped from case pre-trial)
  • Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc., v. Lighting Ballast Control LLC, No. 15-893 (intrinsic vs extrinsic evidence for claim construction).
  • STC, Inc. v. Global Traffic Technologies, No. 15-592 (Whether marking the packaging of a patented article with patent notification satisfies the marking provision of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) where the patented article itself is undisputedly capable of being marked.)
  • Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 15-842 (IPR institution decisions unreviewable, even when addressed in a final written decision by PTAB) [Note – This case was dismissed after being settled by the parties]
  • Alps South, LLC v. The Ohio Willow Wood Company, No. 15-567
  • Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-538
  • OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 15-642
  • Fivetech Technology Inc. v. Southco, Inc., No. 15-381
  • Tyco Healthcare Group LP, et al. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., No. 15-115
  • Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 15-561
  • Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., et al. v. Eidos Display, LLC, et al., No. 15-288
  • Kenneth Butler, Sr. v. Balkamp Inc., et al., No. 15-273
  • Arthrex, Inc. v. KFx Medical Corporation, No. 15-291
  • Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., No. 15-559 (Commil re-hash – if actions were “not objectively unreasonable” can they constitute inducement?)
  • Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., et al. v. Apotex Inc., No. 15-281
  • Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 15-307
  • Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Munchkin, Inc., No. 15-242
  • Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 15-326
  • I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., et al., No. 14-1358
  • Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc., et al., No. 14-1362
  • Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, et al., No. 14-1473
  • L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., et al., No. 15-41
  • NetAirus Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 14-1353
  • Muffin Faye Anderson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, No. 14-10337
  • MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-206
  • SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., No. 15-461 (Kessler doctrine)
  • Rodney K. Morgan, et al. v. Global Traffic Technologies LLC, No. 15-602
  • Lakshmi Arunachalam v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 15-691

5. Prior versions of this report: