A California jury recently awarded Apple $538.6 million in total damages for patent infringement by Samsung. This is the latest development in the patent battle between smartphone industry titans that began in 2011 and took another step towards completion. The verdict arrived after five days of deliberations and seven months after Judge Koh ordered a second trial to determine appropriate damages in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in December of 2016. The jury attributed $533.3 million for the infringement of Apple’s design patents and $5.3 million for infringement of Apple’s utility patents.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a proposed change to the standard for construing both unexpired and amended patent claims in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings under the America Invents Act (“AIA”). The change would replace the current Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (“BRI”) standard with the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp. 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). This change would harmonize the claim construction standard applied in inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered business method patent proceedings before the PTAB with the one used by federal district courts and the International Trade Commission. The proposed amendment would also allow the PTAB to consider any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the involved claim in a civil action, or an ITC proceeding, that is timely made of record in an AIA proceeding.
On December 19, 2017 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) held a “Chat with the Chief” webinar in which Chief Judge David Ruschke presented very recent developments on a variety of topics related to practice before the Board, including Aqua Products guidance for motions to amend, new procedures for handling remands, and the expanded panel process.
In a first of its kind decision with important ramifications for patentees, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) denied a petition to suspend or temporarily rescind remedial orders issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-945 pending appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) separate finding that the patent claims at issue are invalid. The ITC has therefore decided to continue to exclude products it found to be infringing certain patents, regardless of the PTAB invalidating the very patents the exclusion order is based upon in separate IPR proceedings. While this decision aiding patentees may surprise some, it is consistent with the ITC’s practices regarding stays and of giving little deference to IPR proceedings.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued Final Written Decisions regarding Cisco’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577 (the “’577 Patent”) and 7,023,853 (the “’853 Patent”) on May 25, 2017 and U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (the “’668 Patent”) on June 1, 2017. The PTAB found the ’577 and ’668 Patents invalid but upheld the validity of the ’853 Patent. The Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings were brought by Arista Networks in retaliation to Cisco’s accusations of infringement brought in multiple venues, including at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which had just a few weeks earlier upheld the validity of these very same patents and determined that Arista infringed the ’577 and ’668 Patents, and issued exclusion and cease and desist orders accordingly. Since the IPR decisions issued Arista has filed a petition asking the ITC to suspend its limited exclusion order regarding the ’577 Patent based on the PTAB’s decision and is expected to file a similar request with respect to the ’668 Patent. On the other side, Cisco plans to appeal the PTAB’s decisions to the Federal Circuit. The uncertainty created by these inconsistent outcomes is an issue for patent owners, and it will be interesting to see how these cases are resolved. In addition, this case shows that even though the ITC does not stay its investigations for IPRs, IPRs may still impact ITC proceedings.
For just the third time ever, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”) recently sided with a Patent Owner in an inter partes review (“IPR”) to find that evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness compelled rejection of the Petitioner’s invalidity challenges. In doing so, the Board may have provided other patent owners with a roadmap for prevailing in IPRs with this rarely successful argument against obviousness.
World Bottling Cap had successfully petitioned the Board for inter partes review of Crown Packaging Technology’s U.S. Patent No. 8,550,271 on obviousness grounds. The ’271 Patent describes a bottle cap made with thinner and harder steel compared to conventional caps. Continue Reading PTAB Provides A Possible Roadmap For Patent Owners To Successfully Argue Secondary Considerations Of Nonobvious
As we have covered in detail here before, Apple sued Samsung in 2011, for infringement of design patents covering a black rectangular front face with rounded corners, a rectangular front face with rounded corners and a raised rim, and a grid of 16 colorful icons on a black screen. A jury found that several Samsung smartphones did infringe those patents and awarded $399 million in damages to Apple for Samsung’s design patent infringement. The Federal Circuit subsequently upheld the award.
Last week, the Supreme Court held that the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a damages award for design patent infringement need not be the end product sold to the consumer, but may be only a component of that product. In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-777, slip op. (Dec. 6, 2016), a unanimous 8-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor reversed the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Apple was entitled to $399 million in damages, and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit.
To read more about the decision, please click here.
The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The majority’s decision in Husky Injection Molding Sys Ltd., v. Athena Automation Ltd., Nos. 2015-1726, 2015-1727 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 23, 2016) effectively allows former patent owners and inventors to use IPRs to challenge patents they have since assigned.
Think you’ve won on validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and your claims are safe on appeal? “Not so fast,” says the Federal Circuit in Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook Inc., Nos. 2015-1649 through 2015-1563 (Fed. Cir., Sep. 9, 2016) (nonprecedential) (per curiam).
In Software Rights, patentee Software Rights Archive appealed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) decision finding four independent claims across two patents invalid (two claims in each patent). Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter cross-appealed, arguing that further claims should not have been held patentable.
The Federal Circuit panel majority, performing its own analysis of the prior art, agreed with Facebook that several additional claims in the patents were anticipated and rendered obvious over the cited prior art.
On March 7, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recognized “a patent-agent privilege extending to communications with non-attorney patent agents when those agents are acting within the agent’s authorized practice of law before the Patent Office.” The opinion, In Re: Queen’s University at Kingston, PARTEQ Research and Development Innovations, authored by Judge O’Malley and joined by Judge Lourie, granted Queen’s University’s petition for mandamus relief and ordered the district court to withdraw its blanket order compelling the production of communications between Queen’s University and its non-attorney patent agents.
Queen’s University, located in Ontario, Canada, sued Samsung for patent infringement. Throughout fact discovery, Queen’s University refused to produce certain documents it believed contained privileged information. The documents included communications between Queen’s University employees and registered non-lawyer patent agents, which were working without attorney supervision, discussing the prosecution of the patents-in-suit. Samsung moved the district court to compel the production of these documents. The magistrate judge granted Samsung’s motion, finding that the agents’ communications are not subject to the attorney client privilege and that a separate patent-agent privilege does not exist.