The U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on May 22, 2017, a patent infringement case that has garnered national attention for its implications on venue. This case originated with a motion to transfer an action filed in the District of Delaware to the Southern District of Indiana, where the Defendant accused of patent infringement is headquartered. However, the national attention has focused on the possibility that a significant amount of other patent litigation may now shift to the District of Delaware. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari at the end of last year and heard oral arguments in March to address the question of “where proper venue lies for a patent infringement lawsuit brought against a domestic corporation.” The Court has now provided a response to this key question, although a few issues still remain.
Brad Scheller a Member in the firm’s New York office and focuses his practice on patent disputes in Federal District Courts and at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has handled disputes involving a variety of technologies, including electrical components, electronic payment and financial systems, computer software, and various consumer products, including cosmetics, video game systems and personal watercraft. Brad also has significant experience representing clients in inter partes reviews and covered business method patent review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the US Patent and Trademark Office.
Last week the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals clarified the scope of the on-sale bar rule under the America Invents Act (AIA). The on-sale bar in general means that a sale or an offer to sale of an invention more than one year prior to the effective filing date of a patent qualifies as prior art. The Federal Circuit held that 35 U.S.C. § 102 as revised in the AIA does not change the long-settled rule that a sale can invalidate an invention even if the sale does not disclose the details of the invention.
The Federal Circuit has now reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc. finding claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,567,967 (the “‘967 patent”) as being “not supported by substantial evidence.”
Synopsys sued ATopTech in 2013 for allegedly infringing the ‘967 patent. ATopTech subsequently filed two inter partes review (IPR) petitions (IPR2014-01150 and IPR2014-01159) challenging the validity of all claims of the ‘967 patent. The ‘967 patent aims to improve circuit performance by splitting large components into small subcomponents and optimizing the connections between subcomponents. Claim 1 requires “flattening each of said plurality of hierarchically arranged branches by eliminating superfluous levels of hierarchy above said atomic blocks.” Claim 32 requires “determining optimal placement of each of the hard blocks, if any, within the predefined area.” The Board found both claims either obviousness or anticipated in view of the Fields and/or Su references.
Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus Technologies patent directed to systems and methods for reviewing conversation data for certain events and bookmarking portions of the recording when something of interest is said, finding that the Board failed to provide any explanation for its decision with respect to certain challenged claims.
On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court’s judgment of infringement and summary judgment for non-infringement of The Medicines Company’s (“MedCo”) patents-in-suit. See The Medicines Company v. Mylan, Inc., 2015-1113 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The patents-in-suit were U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 (“the ’727 Patent) and 7,598,343 (“the ’343 Patent”). MedCo initiated a suit against Mylan, Inc. (“Mylan”) in response to Mylan submitting an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”). Through submitting an ANDA request, Mylan wished to obtain approval from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for a generic drug that would directly compete against MedCo’s ANGIOMAX® product. To counter Mylan’s ANDA request, and keep their product exclusive, MedCo filed suit alleging that Mylan’s ANDA drug infringed claims in both the ’727 and ’343 Patents.
The district court held on summary judgment that Mylan’s drug did not satisfy the “efficient mixing” limitation of the ’343 Patent; however, following a 6-day bench trial found that Mylan’s drug did infringe the ’727 Patent because the asserted claims did not include an “efficient mixing” limitation. Mylan argued on appeal that the district court erred by not including the “efficient mixing” limitation as part of the “batches” limitation in the ’727 Patent.
In a widely anticipated move with implications for patent litigation across the country, the Supreme Court ruled today that the equitable defense of laches is not available to limit damages in patent infringement cases subject to the six-year damages limitation of 35 U.S.C. § 286.
In S.C.A. Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, the Supreme Court extended to the patent context its reasoning in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014) that laches cannot defeat a claim for copyright infringement damages brought within the rolling three-year limitations period prescribed by the Copyright Act.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) has more recently been indicating to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) the importance of explaining its reasoning when invalidating patent claims. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Icon Health and Fitness v. Strava, finding that the Board did not make requisite factual findings or provide adequate explanations, is the latest reminder from the Court.
Appellee Strava sought inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,789,800. The Examiner found certain claims obvious over various prior art references. The Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of all pending claims as obvious. Appellant Icon Health and Fitness appealed the rejection of twelve claims to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part as to three of the twelve claims, but vacated and remanded in part as to the other nine, stating that the Board’s decision “contain[ed] no substantive discussion of the limitations at issue.” Continue Reading Federal Circuit Reminds PTAB to Explain its Reasoning
As regular readers of this blog will know, our cross-disciplinary Trade Secrets team has been closely monitoring the development of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).
In a webinar organized by The Knowledge Group, Bret Cohen will discuss the DTSA in 2017, and will address the following topics:
- The DTSA Under Trump’s Administration
- Defend Trade Secrets Act – In the 2017 Landscape
- DTSA in the 2016 Landscape: A Recall
- Trade Secret Litigation Trends in 2017
- Trade Secret and Non-Compete Law
- Investigations Under DTSA
- DTSA Injunctions
- Seizure Provisions of the DTSA
- Threatened Disclosure vs Inevitable Disclosure Injunctions
- New Immunity for Whistleblowers
- Recent Cases and Hot Topics
The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least different. In this post, we highlight several cases that present interesting issues and that we anticipate may provide for new and important developments in the patent law this year.
In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that discussed caller ID technology that would verbally announce the name of an incoming caller before the call is connected. The ’695 patent has been asserted in litigation against Apple, Samsung, LG, HTC America, Hewlett-Packard, Palm, Inc., Nokia, and ZTE Corp., in both the Northern District of Illinois, and another suit in the District of Massachusetts, respectively. Apple filed an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) against the ’695 patent, whereby the Board found the ’695 patent obvious in view of two prior art references, the Fujioka and Gulick patents.