by Dennis Crouch
The Supreme Court has completed its patent law business for the 2015 term and will re-open decision making in September 2016. Briefing and new filings will, however, continue throughout the summer.
Two Decisions: The Supreme Court has decided its two major patent cases – Halo/Stryker and Cuozzo. In Halo, the court re-opened the door to more treble-damage awards for willful patent infringement. The decision rejects the objective-recklessness standard of Seagate (Fed. Cir. 2007)(en banc) and instead places substantial discretion in the hands of district court judges for determining the appropriate sactions “egregious infringement behavior.” In Cuozzo, the court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s pro-PTO decision. The decisions confirms the PTO’s authority construe claims according to their broadest-reasonable-construction (BRI) even during post-issuance review proceedings and also confirms the Federal Circuit ruling that the PTO’s initiation of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is not appealable (even after final decision). A major caveat of this appealability issue is that the court limited its holding to run-of-the-mill IPR patent issues. The court did not determine when other issues arising from institution, such as constitutional due process challenges, might be appealable.
Both decisions are important. Halo adds at least a gentle breeze to the would-be patent infringement armada. I heard many discussions of pendulum’s swinging in the days following the case, although I would not go quite so far. Cuozzo was a full affirmance of the PTO position and will operate to continue to raise the statute and importance of the agency.
Three Pending Cases Set the Stage for Next Term: With the certiorari writ grant in Life Tech v. Promega, we now have three patent cases set for review and judgment next term. The issue in Life Tech is fairly narrow and involves export of of a component of a patented invention for combination in a would-be-infringing manner abroad. The statute requires export of a “substantial portion of the components” and the question in the case is whether export of one component can legally constitute that “substantial portion.” In the case, the component (Taq) is a commodity but is also an admitted critical aspect of the invention. Life Tech may be most interesting for those generally interested in international U.S. law (i.e., extraterritorial application of U.S. law). The other two pending cases are Samsung v. Apple (special damages in design patent cases) and SCA Hygiene (laches defense in patent cases).
None of these three pending cases are overwhelmingly important in the grand scheme of the patent system, although Samsung is fundamental to the sub-genre of design patents. This week, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Sequenom v. Ariosa – a case that some thought might serve to rationalize patent eligibility doctrine in a way that favors patentees. For now, the Mayo, Alice, _____ trilogy remains open-ended. This leaves the Federal Circuit in its nadir.
Following Cuozzo, the only AIA post-issue review cases still ongoing are Cooper and MCM. These cases raise US Constitutional issues that were expressly not decided in Cuozzo. Briefing is ongoing in MCM and one scenario is that the court will sit on Cooper and then grant/deny the pair together. A new petition was filed by Trading Technologies just before Cuozzo was released – the case focuses on a mandamus (rather than appeal) of a CBM institution decision for a patent covering a GUI tool. (Full disclosure – while in practice I represented TT and litigated the patent at issue). Of minor interest, the court issued a GVR order (Grant-Vacate-Remand) in Click-to-Call Tech. v. Oracle Corp (15-1014) with instructions to the Federal Circuit to reconsider its prior decision in light of the recently decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U. S. ___ (2016). It will be interesting to see whether the patentee can develop a new hook for the Federal Circuit.
The end-of-term clean sweep leaves only two-more briefed-cases with potential for certiorari: Impression Prod. v. Lexmark Int’l. (post-sale restrictions); and Sandoz v. Amgen (BPCIA patent dance). In both cases the court called for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG). DOJ briefs should be filed around the end of the year – although the election may shift some of the timing. SG Donald Verrilli has stepped down with former deputy Ian Gershengorn now serving as Acting SG.
The big list:
1. Petitions Granted:
- Briefing: SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 15-927 (laches in patent cases).
- Briefing: Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No 15-777 (design patent damages calculation)
- Briefing: 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)
2. Petitions Granted with immediate Vacatur and Remand (GVR)
- Click-to-Call Tech, LP v. Oracale Corp., No. 15-1014 (Same questions as Cuozzo and Achates v. Apple)
- Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 15-635 (Stryker/Halo follow-on – potential wait-and-see)
- WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, No. 15-1085 (remand on willfulness issues)
- Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., et al. v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 15-85 (Commil re-hash – mens rea requirement for inducement)
3. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Pending:
- Laches: Medinol Ltd. v. Cordis Corporation, et al., No. 15-998 (follow-on to SCA)
- Safe Harbor: Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 15-1402 (scope of 271(e) safe harbor)
- Exhaustion: Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 15-1189 (unreasonable restraints on downstream uses)
- Post Grant Admin: MCM v. HP, No 15-1330 (separation of powers and right to jury trial).
- Post Grant Admin: Cooper v. Lee, No. 15-955 (whether IPRs violate Separation of Powers; two amici now filed in support)
- Post Grant Admin: Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. Lee, No. 15-1516 (mandamus challenging CBM initiation)
- 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?)
- 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)
- Appellate Review: Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 15-1446 (appellate disregard of factual evidence)
4. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Denied or Dismissed:
- 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?)
- Stephenson v. Game Show Network, LLC, et al., No. 15-1187 (is BRI proper for IPR validity challenges?; Same as Cuozzo) [GameShowNetworkPetition]
- Shukh v. Seagate, No. 15-1285 (pre-invention assignment of future patent rights)
- Newegg Inc. v. MacroSolve, Inc., No. 15-1369 (district court’s too-high burden)
- Globus Medical, Inc. v. Sabatino Bianco, No. 15-1203 (Appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit) [GlobusMedicalPetition]
- Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 15-1182 (scope of the natural phenomenon eligibility exclusion)
- Versata v. SAP, No. 15-1145 (scope of CBM review)
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-1386
Automotive Body Parts Association v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, et al., No. 15-1314
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 15-1440 (fact-law divide in proving infringement damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284)
- 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]
- Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 15-1210 (bright line limits on secondary indicia of nonobviousness) [CubistPetition]
- Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al., No. 15-1201 (abstract idea eligibility) [VehicleIntelligencePetition]
- Cloud Satchel, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., et al., No. 15-1161 (abstract idea eligibility) [CloudSatchelPetition]
- 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?)
- Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., No. 15-1062 (natural phenom case of tailoring a diet to a pet’s genomic characteristics)
- Tas v. Beach, No. 15-1089 (written description requirement for new drug treatments)
- 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))
- Vermont v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, No. 15-838 (Federal court jurisdiction in anti-troll consumer protection case)
- 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: