On May 10, 2017 and following a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reexamination decision upholding certain claims, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC that all of the appealed claims of a fiber optic patent held by Cirrex are invalid for lack of a written description support required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. The panel applied its own construction of a key claim term requiring that a recited functional limitation take place in a specific location which the specification failed to describe.
Peter Cuomo is Of Counsel in the firm and is based in our Boston office. His practice involves intellectual property enforcement and defense, and client counseling on issues related to IP rights. Peter's primary focus is in patent litigation, where he has experience in every phase from pre-suit investigations through appeal, including initial evaluation and case initiation, fact and expert discovery, pre-and post-trial motion practice, and trials and appeals. In addition to suits centered on the assertion and defense of infringement claims, Peter has experience with the successful resolution of multiple inventorship disputes and related misappropriation claims.
On March 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified, in a precedential opinion, that an anticipating reference must supply all of the claim elements, regardless of what a person of skill in the art might envision when reading the reference. In Nidec Motor Corporation v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., et al., the Federal Circuit explicitly rejected the notion that a patent claim may be anticipated by a prior art reference lacking a claim element when a skilled artisan reading the reference would “at once envisage” that missing element. Reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the Federal Circuit panel held that Nidec’s patent was not anticipated.
On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and unmistakable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In Technology Properties Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit made clear that statements made during patent prosecution will not constitute a disclaimer of claim scope where the statements are “ambiguous or amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations,” but that a disclaimer based on unambiguous statements during prosecution may serve to surrender more claim scope than was necessary to overcome a rejection. Continue Reading Federal Circuit Reiterates That Patent Prosecution Disclaimers Must Be “Clear and Unmistakable”
When the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision finding against an IPR Petitioner, can that Petitioner necessarily appeal that adverse decision? In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit recently answered “no.”
In Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Petitioner Phigenix lacked standing to appeal the PTAB’s final IPR decision in favor of Patent Owner ImmunoGen because Phigenix failed to prove that there was an actual “case or controversy” between it and ImmunoGen concerning the challenged patent. According to the Federal Circuit, although such a “case or controversy” may not be necessary for Phigenix to appear in an IPR proceeding before an administrative agency like PTAB, it remains a requirement for Phigenix to seek appellate review in a federal court.
Plaintiffs bringing patent infringement complaints under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard should take notice. On September 30, 2016, a panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a deficient complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The panel agreed held that a complaint for joint infringement of a patent must show which alleged actor performed each of the required claim elements. The plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to plausibly allege that the defendants exercised the required “direction or control” such that the performance of every claim step could be attributable to them.
On March 12, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana joined the District of Delaware and Eastern District of Texas as the first courts to consider a generic drug manufacturer’s motion to dismiss a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action for an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction following the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014). Eli Lilly & Co. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Mar. 12, 2015). The Eli Lilly court denied generic defendant Mylan’s motion to dismiss, finding specific jurisdiction appropriate in Indiana based on the unique nature of Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation and the defendant’s forum contacts. Continue Reading Court Denies Generic Drug Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss Hatch-Waxman Patent Infringement Action on Jurisdiction Grounds
On December 9, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) upheld the validity of three Supernus Pharmaceutical’s patents relating to once-daily formulations of doxycycline. The trio of decisions is significant because one of the three patents had been at issue in a Hatch Waxman litigation. The PTAB’s decision with respect to this patent marks the first time the Board has reached a final decision regarding the validity of a patent first put at issue in litigation filed under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
The patents at issue in the three decisions – U.S. Patent Nos. 8,206,740 (“the ‘740 patent”), 8,394,405 (“the ‘405 patent”), and 8,394,406 (“the ‘406 patent”) – all related to Oracea®, an antibiotic used to treat the chronic skin disease rosacea. The ‘740 patent was originally asserted in a Hatch Waxman proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:11-cv-01106-LPS). Eleven months after plaintiffs in that action amended their complaint to assert infringement of the ‘740 patent (which issued subsequent to the filing of the initial action), Amneal filed a petition seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ‘740 patent, thus challenging the validity of that patent simultaneously before the district court and before the PTAB. Continue Reading For the First Time PTAB Upholds Validity of Pharma Patents