The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in February that it was wrong for a judge to rule that a patent was ineligible under the Alice standard because there were underlying factual disputes that could not be resolved on summary judgement. The case is Berkheimer v. HP Inc., case number 17-1437, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC, (“ATS”) appealed findings of invalidity for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. In a decision rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 16, 2018, the Court affirmed the district court’s finding that the subject matter was not patent-eligible.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision declaring various claims of patent owner Thales’ U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (“the ‘159 patent”) nonobvious. In doing so, the Federal Circuit clarified what constitutes the substantial evidence required to sustain the Board’s factual findings on appeal.
Struggling to keep case law relating to subject matter eligibility organized? In February 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released an improved Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet, providing patent practitioners with a useful tool for analyzing claims in view of 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility requirements.
In an application of 2017 U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Impressions Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc., the Northern District California in International Fruit Genetics LLC v. Orcharddepot.com, No. 4:17-cv-02905-JSW, recently denied a motion to dismiss a claim of patent infringement by holding that the patent exhaustion doctrine did not apply to a sale of a patented product that was outside the scope of the license granted by the patent owner. This decision helps inform how licenses may be interpreted post-Impression Products.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is implementing eCommerce Modernization (eMod), as discussed at a USPTO Patent Quality Chat webinar on February 13, 2018 (click here for the webinar slides). Highlighted features of the eMod project are described in a May 2017 Global IP Matters article. This article provides an overview of the eMod project and focuses on updates to the eMod project as explained in the February webinar.
In general, the eMod project will provide a new interface, Patent Center, that combines EFS-Web and PAIR into a single interface for filing and managing patent applications. Benefits of Patent Center include an improved interface and improved processes for submitting, reviewing, and managing patent applications and increased application processing and publication accuracy. Continue Reading Updates to USPTO eMod Project to Improve E-Filing/Managing Patent Applications
We thank Gary Gutzler, of AlixPartners, for co-authoring this post.
On January 12, 2018 in Exmark Manufacturing Co. Inc., v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, the Federal Circuit once again addressed the issue of apportioning damages, an area of the law that continues to evolve. The parties in Exmark are competitors in the commercial lawn mower market. The patent-in-suit related to a lawn mower with an improved “baffle” that more efficiently directed air flow and grass clippings when the mower was operating. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the defendant’s mower was found to infringe and the jury awarded the plaintiff over $24 million in damages. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the method of apportionment utilized by the Plaintiff’s expert, but rejected the expert’s application of that method.
We can take two valuable lessons from a recent decision of the Federal Circuit:
- Review all check boxes on forms when filing a U.S. patent application; and
- The United States Patent and Trademark Office is not to blame for deadlines falling on federal holidays.
On February 6, 2018, in Actelion v. Matal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The dispute centered on the 40-day “A delay” patent term adjustment (PTA) awarded by the PTO to Actelion for U.S. Patent 8,658,675 (“the ‘675 patent”), entitled “Pyridin-4-yl Derivatives.” Actelion asserted that it was entitled to 45 days of PTA, or alternatively, at least 41 days.
The Medicines Company (“MedCo”) appealed findings of no infringement made by the United District Court for the District of Delaware. Hospira cross-appealed the district court’s finding that a distribution agreement did not constitute an invalidating “offer for sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In a decision rendered by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 6, 2018, the Court affirmed the district court’s non-infringement findings and remanded the case for the district court to determine if the on-sale bar applies.
MedCo asserted two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 and 7,598,343, covering its Angiomax drug product against Hospira, a generic drug maker who filed Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the Food and Drug Administration. Although Angiomax has been available for decades, MedCo developed a new method of formulating Angiomax to reduce impurities. This formulation was the subject of the asserted patents, both of which were filed on July 27, 2008. Prior to filing the patents, MedCo entered into a distribution agreement on February 27, 2007 with Integrated Commercialization Solutions, Inc. (“ICS”) to distribute the new Angiomax formulation. The agreement stated that MedCo “desire[d] to sell the Product” to ICS and ICS “desire[d] to purchase and distribute the Product.” Under the agreement, title passed to ICS upon receipt of the Product at the distribution center. The district court concluded that the patents were neither infringed nor invalid. The district court found that the invention was ready for patenting at the time of the agreement, but was not sold or offered for sale before the critical date of July 27, 2008 because the distribution agreement between MedCo and ICS did not constitute an offer to sell. Both parties appealed.
In Drop Stop LLC v. Jian Qing Zhu et al, 2-16-cv-07916 (CACD January 22, 2018), the Central District of California granted Plaintiff’s motion to award attorney fees due to Defendants’ exceptional litigation tactics under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Initially, counsel for Plaintiff sent a cease and desist email to Defendants to stop selling an infringing product, and attached a draft claim chart in support of its infringement position. The claim chart included a disclaimer stating “PLEASE NOTE – this informal opinion cannot be relied upon definitively. A formal opinion is required, and that involves extensive study and other efforts to provide a reliable outcome. Please call me to discuss.” However, four days later, Defendants re-listed the accused products and sent Plaintiff an email attaching Plaintiff’s draft claim chart without the disclaimer. Defendants relied upon Plaintiff’s claim chart to support its non-infringement positions despite not having performed any analysis of their own, and entirely dismissing Plaintiff’s disclaimer, which expressly disclaimed any formal legal opinion.