Tag Archives: Federal Circuit

Managing tipping payments is an administrative problem, not a technological problem

Patent, , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

This is the third eligibility post in as many days.  In a non-precedential decision issued September 10, 2024, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's rejection of claims in a patent application directed to eliciting tips for media content -- finding them ineligible. In re McDonald, No. 24-1015 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2024).

The applicant here is a Utah start-up VidAngel, Inc., that helps folks "Filter out the stuff you don’t want to see or hear in your streaming movies & TV shows, like profanity, nudity, violence & more.  But, the invention here has a different focus - it is a setup for eliciting and receiving tips from consumers of media content like streaming movies.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Drafting for Eligibility: Insights from the Federal Circuit’s Contour IP v. GoPro

Patent, , ,

by Dennis Crouch

In Contour IP v. GoPro, the Federal Circuit has reversed a Judge Orrick (N.D.Cal.) summary judgment of ineligibility.  The case here should be one for patent drafters  to consider -- particularly thinking about how to incorporate specific technological improvements into their patent claims and specification (while still maintaining broad claim coverage).  Of course, the patentee here has the benefit of actual hardware beyond mere processing.

Contour owns two patents related to POV video cameras. These patents claim a camera system having lenses, sensors, etc., that generates two video streams of different quality in parallel, wirelessly transmitting the lower-quality stream to a remote device for real-time viewing and control on your phone. The higher-quality stream is stored on the camera for later use.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Hindsight 20/20: Federal Circuit Okays Retroactive Expertise

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

In patent litigation, we continue to see enhanced focus on qualifying (i.e., disqualifying) expert witnesses. Skilled expert testimony can be so convincing for a jury while also laying the foundation to win on appeal.  And, expert testimony is a legal necessity in most patent cases both for damages calculations (damages expert) as well as for validity and infringement (technical expert).  Having your expert knocked-out just before or in the midst of trial is a nightmare situation.

In its 2022 Kyocera decision, the Federal Circuit explained that a technical expert must - at minimum - be a person of skill in the art to which the invention pertains.  Someone who purports to be an expert but lacks that 'ordinary' knowledge will be disqualified under patent law's Daubert nuance.  In patent law, PHOSITA's knowledge is temporally tied to the patent application filing date (or invention date pre-AIA).  What we're typically looking for is the level of skill at the time that the application was filed (or perhaps when issued / amended).

This temporal frame is the focus of the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Osseo Imaging v. Planmeca, where the court was asked to disqualify the patentee's expert witness because he was not skilled in the art back when the invention was made -- rather, became skilled almost a decade later.

The case has some parallels to EcoFactor v. Google, that is currently pending before the Federal Circuit on an en banc petition regarding admissibility of damages expert testimony.

Defense Side Amici Support for Tighter Reins on Damages Expert Testimony

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

The Art of Losing Gracefully or How Koki’s appellate loss is truly a win.

Patent, , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

We have seen lots of ITC action recently. In the new Koki v. ITC decision, the Federal Circuit found that the accused infringer Koki lacked Constitutional standing to bring the appeal  based upon a binding promise not to sue submitted by the patentee Kyocera.

As I discuss at the end of this post, although Koki is the nominal loser, the company substantially advanced its position on appeal because Kyocera was forced to declare (and then clarify) its promise in order to obtain dismissal.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Omitted Elements and Written Description: Federal Circuit’s Split Decision in Allergan v. Sun Pharma

Patent, , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

I previously wrote about Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (Sun Pharma), No. 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024), focusing on Federal Circuit's about-face on obviousness-type double patenting.  My original post skipped over an important aspect of the opinion: the court's 2-1 decision favoring the patentee on the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).  This portion of the case focuses once again on when an element is "essential" to the invention and therefore required in the claims.

Four key takeaways:

  1. We presume that no element is "essential."
  2. Courts should look for indications in the patent documents that the feature is critical, essential, etc.
  3. The court here relied upon broad claims in the priority filing that were later deleted in order to show the inventor possessed embodiments that did not require the element.
  4. The key focus for written description is comparing the specification with the claims.  Although expert testimony may be relevant, it must be directly tied to the intrinsic record.

All of these elements point to the idea that it is the job of the patent drafter and prosecutor to ensure the written description is sufficient, and to avoid pitfalls that might indicate otherwise.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Rehearing Requested: Hikma Challenges Federal Circuit’s Skinny Label Ruling

Patent, , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

[A prior version of this article's title mistakenly stated that Amarin had filed the petition]

Hikma's recent petition for rehearing en banc against Amarin asks the Federal Circuit to reconsider its "skinny label" jurisprudence.  Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 23-1169 (Fed. Cir. 2024)

These cases typically involve the following scenario:

  • a drug formulation with multiple approved uses;
  • the formulation/compound patents are all expired as are patents on one or more uses; but
  • at least one method of use claim is still under patent (e.g., take 100 mg each day to treat hypertension...).

The FDA will approve a generic version of the formulation, but the approved label will only mention the non-patented uses.  Thus, it is a "skinny label" because the patented uses listed on for the branded formulation have been "carved out."

Of course, everyone understands that it is the same drug and will be just as safe and effective as the branded. The generic manufacturer, along with doctors, patients, pharmacies, insurance companies, and hospitals, . . . they all understand the carveout as simply a patent legalese. While technically an 'off label' prescription, it is still for an approved use considered safe and effective. In my experience, these folks typically do not strongly support the patent system and would have no compunction against using the cheaper drug for the patented use -- so long as they do not get tagged.

Background on the Amarin case: Amarin markets Vascepa (icosapent ethyl), which was initially approved by the FDA  in 2012 to treat severe hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides ≥500 mg/dL). In 2019, Amarin obtained a second FDA-approved indication for Vascepa to reduce cardiovascular risk in certain patients. Amarin holds method patents on this cardiovascular (CV) indication. Hikma sought approval for a generic version of Vascepa, but with a "skinny label" that carved out the patented CV indication under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii). After launching its generic, Hikma issued press releases referring to its product as the "generic version of Vascepa" and noting Vascepa's total sales figures, which were largely attributable to the patented (but unmentioned) CV use.  None of Hikma's statements direct others toward the patented CV use, but conspiracy minded jurists could quickly connect these dots. If you know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink.

The basic question in the case is whether these actions by Hikma qualify as the "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement" typically required by precedent.  Quoting DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc in relevant part).

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Red Flags Waved Off: Federal Circuit Rejects Overzealous Fee Award against Patentee

Patent, , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

While sitting by designation as at the Federal Circuit, Judge Alan Albright has authored an important new opinion on attorney fees patent cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The court vacated and remanded a fee award by Colorado Judge Brooke Jackson, finding that Judge Jackson abused her discretion when determining that the case was "exceptional" under the statute. Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C. v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 2023-1035 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2024).

One wild thing about this case is that Sling TV (DISH) was awarded a $3.9 million fee for seven months of pre-trial litigation -- with the defendant on eligibility at the summary judgment stage. (Having requested ~$5 million).

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Old Dog, New Tricks: Government Defends 200-Year-Old ODP Doctrine Even Under Modern Statutes

Patent, , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The debate over obviousness type double patenting continues.  Most recently, the U.S. Government has filed its brief in opposition to certiorari in Cellect v. Vidal. 

In its decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Congressionally mandated "patent term guarantee" that adjusts patent term to account for undue USPTO delay (known as PTA) triggers a risk that a later-expiring patent will be invalidated due to obviousness-type double  patenting (ODP). The Government brief consistently defends and agrees with the CAFC's decision -- arguing primarily (1) that ODP is an ancient patent tradition (much like eligibility) and (2) applying ODP to PTA is supported by the statute.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

ITC Patent Jurisdiction: Roku’s Petition and Contreras’ Critique

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

by Dennis Crouch

Roku, Inc. has asked the Supreme Court to review 2024 Federal Circuit decision affirming the US International Trade Commission's (ITC) finding of a Section 337 violation based on infringement of a TV-remote patent owned by Universal Electronics, Inc. (UEI). US10593196 (method of configuring user interfaces on home theater devices to control other appliances).

The petition focuses on the ITC's "domestic industry" requirement, and the level of nexus required between substantial domestic investment, the scope of the asserted patent, and any articles that embody the patented invention.  The case invites a broader reconsideration of the ITC's role in patent disputes, including its near-automatic issuance of exclusion orders against adjudged infringers.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Deference to District Courts: Federal Circuit’s New Approach to Venue Transfer Petitions

Patent, , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

In a recent order, the Federal Circuit denied Apple's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking yet again to transfer a patent infringement case from the Western District of Texas (Judge Albright) to the Northern District of California. In re Apple Inc., 24-129 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Emphasizing Context in Claim Construction

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

In Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit has reversed Judge Albright's holding that claims of Neonode's US8095879 are invalid as indefinite.  No. 2023-2304 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2024) (non-precedential). The appellate panel concluded that Albright failed to properly consider the full context of the intrinsic record, particularly the prosecution history.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Apple v. Vidal: APA Compliance in IPR Discretionary Denial Rules

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

by Dennis Crouch

I have written several times about the Chestek case regarding notice-and-comment requirements under the APA.  A second notice-and-comment case is also pending before the Federal Circuit, potentially having a much greater impact on patent practice.  The case, Apple v. Vidal, focuses on IPR discretionary denials, which the USPTO implemented as policy without any formal rulemaking notice-and-comment.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Government Opposition to Chestek’s Cert Petition

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The U.S. Solicitor General has filed the Government's opposition to Chestek PLLC's petition for a writ of certiorari in a case challenging the USPTO's authority to implement certain procedural rules without notice-and-comment rulemaking. The case has has significant implications for the agency's regulatory powers. In particular, the Federal Circuit's decision frees the agency so that it most situations it can conduct rulemaking without any notice-and-comment.  Chestek offers some similarities to another APA case pending at the Federal Circuit, Apple v. Vidal, that similarly questions whether the FINTIV discretionary denial rules should have gone through notice-and-comment. 

If you recall, this case center's on the USPTO's attempt to address trademark fraud.  One approach that the agency has taken is to require trademark applicants to provide their domicile address (defined as their permanent legal residence or principal place of business) rather than just a mailing address.  84 Fed. Reg. 31,498 (July 2, 2019).   The agency found that many of the fraudulent filing were from foreign applicants using a U.S. mailing address. This requirement is designed to help weed those out.  Chestek refused to provide her home address to the USPTO because of privacy concerns, leading the USPTO to reject her trademark application.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

EcoFactor Responds: Defending the Federal Circuit’s Damages Ruling Allowing Qualitative Apportionment

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

by Dennis Crouch

This is my third post focusing on Google's en banc challenge to 'loose' damages testimony. The patentee, EcoFactor, has now filed a responsive brief in the ongoing smart thermostat patent dispute which resulted in a $20 million jury verdict against Google.  A 2-1 Federal Circuit panel affirmed the verdict and, as you might expect, EcoFactor's en banc response defends the decision, arguing that the case presents a straightforward application of established precedent.  At core, EcoFactor argues that Google and amici are seeking to impose new, rigid rules that go beyond existing Federal Circuit precedent.  Although some say that hindsight is 20/20, anyone who has undergone a hypothetical damages analysis will understand that the process always involves some degree of guestimation and uncertainty -- adding additional precision and calculation is unlikely to provide any true certainty or predictability.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

No Concrete Plans, No Standing: Federal Circuit’s Latest on IPR Appeals

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

by Dennis Crouch

The recent Federal Circuit decision in Platinum Optics v. Viavi Solutions focuses attention once again on the case-and-controversy requirement derived from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which extends federal judicial power to "Cases" and "Controversies."

The seemingly simple phrase has been the subject of extensive judicial jockeying in the development of the doctrine we know as "standing."

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Defense Side Amici Support for Tighter Reins on Damages Expert Testimony

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

by Dennis Crouch

Google's pending en banc petition in EcoFactor v. Google has drawn significant  support from some tech giants, focusing on the application of Daubert standards to patent damages expert testimony. Five amicus briefs supporting Google's position have been filed with the Federal Circuit, each arguing for stricter scrutiny of damages calculations and expert reliability in patent cases.  This post discusses the case and the issues presented by the amici army.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Policy Considerations: The On-Sale Bar for Secret Processes

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

by Dennis Crouch

In light of the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Celanese v. ITC, it's worth examining the policy implications of maintaining a strong on-sale bar that extends even to invalidate patents on secret processes when the resulting products have been commercialized. This rule is rooted in pre-AIA jurisprudence and is now affirmed under the AIA.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Family Planning Patent Style: Allergan, Cellect, and the ODP Maze

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

by Dennis Crouch

Most U.S. utility patents are (or will eventually be) part of a patent family with at least one other U.S. patent. The recent rise in focus on obviousness type double patenting (ODP) has been unnerving to some, especially with the Cellect decision from 2023 that seemed to greatly expand the risk of family members colliding based upon differing expiration dates due to Patent Term Adjustment (PTA).

The Federal Circuit's new ODP opinion in Allergan USA v. MSN Labs, 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2014), provides some major relief to patent portfolio holders, holding that "a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring reference claim having a common priority date." This ruling provides a measure of protection for first-filed patents that receive substantial PTA, shielding them from ODP challenges based on their own continuations sharing the same priority date.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

No Sugar-Coating: Post-AIA Patent on Secret Process Barred by Pre-Filing Sale of Product

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

by Dennis Crouch

Although the result could have been guessed, the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision interpreting the scope of post-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 -- and the meaning of the "claimed invention." Celanese Intl. Corp. v. Intl. Trade Comm'n,  22-01827 (Fed. Cir. August 12, 2024).   In particular, the court affirmed the precedent of D.L. Auld -- i.e., the on-sale bar continues to block patenting of an otherwise secret process when the patentee makes pre-filing sales of product made using that process. The ITC had invalidated Celanese' artificial sweetener manufacturing process patent based upon these pre-filing sales. That judgment was thus affirmed on appeal.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Zebra’s Stripes: Just So Stories about Patent Standing

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

by Dennis Crouch

The newest patent-focused petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court was recently filed by Zebra Technologies, challenging the Federal Circuit's determination that the a patentee had standing to sue for infringement even though  a third party separately held rights to assign, license, and enforce patent rights.

The case offers an increasingly common situation in patent litigation finance where the litigation funder is seeking legal assurances and collateral rights, but where those rights potentially risk stripping the patent owner from the exclusionary rights necessary to establish standing. 

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.