Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Author: Christopher H. Strate

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: Supreme Court Declines to Expand the Scope of Indirect Infringement Liability in View of Federal Circuit’s Muniauction Ruling

by

Posted in Patent

On June 16, 2014

The United Supreme Court has been a “hot bench” for patent cases. On the same day, it issued two unanimous decisions reversing the Federal Circuit relating to claim definiteness and inducement infringement, the former of which we previously discussed. In the latter, Limelight Networks v. Akamai Tech. No. 12-786, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a party cannot be liable for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) unless there is direct infringement in 35 U.S.C. §271(a). The Court in dicta also suggested that the Federal Circuit may wish to reconsider its prior decision, Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (2008), which held that a party–who does not perform all the method steps–cannot be liable for direct infringement in §271(a) unless it controls or directs another party to complete the other steps.

Supreme Court Reestablishes Standard for Attorneys’ Fees Under §285

by

Posted in Patent

On May 5, 2014

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health and Fitness issued a ruling that reestablishes the previous standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in the event of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285. In its opinion, the Court held that a case should be considered “exceptional” when it “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position … or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” The Court instructed that this determination should be made on a “case-by-case” basis “considering the totality of the circumstances.”

Time Bars for Joint Authors and Copyright Registration Cancellation: The Third Circuit Weighs in on Two Issues of First Impression

by

Posted in Intellectual Property

On February 21, 2014

On January 29, the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Brownstein v. Lindsay that addressed two issues of first impression under United States Copyright Law. One was whether a court has authority to cancel a copyright registration. The second was when the statute of limitations begins to toll on a co-author’s claim of copyright ownership against his or her co-author.

Supreme Court to Take Case on Patentability of Software

by

Posted in Patent

On December 9, 2013

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (Docket No. 13-298). In this case, the Court will take up the issue of: Whether claims to computer-implemented inventions – including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture – are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court.

Hoping to Understand the Troll: the FTC Seeks Public Comment on its Proposed Information Requests

by

Posted in Patent

On October 7, 2013

On September 27, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), announced that it had unanimously voted to seek public comments on its proposed requests for information from selected Patent Assertion Entities (“PAEs”), typically referred to as “patent trolls.” The FTC’s proposed 6(b) order seeks information from approximately 25 yet-to-be-named PAEs in the wireless communications sector regarding among other things, their “patent acquisition, litigation, and licensing practices.”

Cancellation of Claims by USPTO During Reexam is Binding in Pending District Court Infringement Litigation

by and

Posted in Patent

On August 26, 2013

Last month, the Federal Circuit addressed the question of “whether, under the reexamination statute, the cancellation of claims by the PTO is binding in pending district court infringement litigation.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13484, at *13 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2013). The Federal Circuit interpreted the reexamination statute to have a binding effect on concurrent litigation, and thus terminated a pending litigation where the same patent claims were cancelled during reexamination. Id. at *43. Accordingly here, the Federal Circuit held that the PTO’s invalidity decisions trump the prior district court ruling.

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett

by

Posted in Pharmaceuticals

On July 10, 2013

The generic pharmaceutical industry faced a Catch-22 when a serious adverse reaction arose from use of a generic drug product, and the manufacturer was restrained from unilaterally amending the product label to conform to state requirements, due to the Supreme Court’s decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011). PLIVA held that state requirements to change a label are pre-empted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act’s prohibition of changing labeling without authorization by the FDA.

Suffolk Tech. v. AOL et al., In Search of a Reasonable Royalty Post-Uniloc

by

Posted in Patent

On April 22, 2013

On April 12, United States District Judge Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia excluded the testimony of patentee Suffolk’s damages expert directed to a reasonable royalty based on the Nash Bargaining Solution, a kind of negotiation model. Suffolk’s expert used the Nash Bargaining Solution to determine that damages should be based on a 50/50 split of incremental profits. The Court struck this analysis, finding that the 50/50 split was analogous to the 25% rule previously rejected by the Federal Circuit in Uniloc v. Microsoft.

Proposed Bill Seeks to Answer the Pay for Delay Debate

by

Posted in Pharmaceuticals

On February 7, 2013

As the so-called pay for-delay case is ripening for Supreme Court oral argument on March 25, 2013, on Tuesday a bi-partisan group of senators introduced legislation meant to strongly deter such arrangements. The introduction of the bill, known as the “Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act,” follows an annual FTC report disclosing 40 potential pay-for-delay deals struck in the 2012 fiscal year — a jump from 28 such deals in 2011. The goal of the bill is “to prohibit brand name drug companies from compensating generic drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug into the market.” Such reverse payments (payments made by branded pharmaceutical patent holders to generic challengers to postpone market entry) are considered lawful by some, and anti-competitive by others, including the FTC.

New USPTO Filing Fees Announced ….

by

Posted in Patent

On January 24, 2013

IP practitioners are well aware of the new rules heralded by the America Invents Act (“AIA”). Section 10 of the AIA authorizes the Director of the USPTO to set or adjust any patent fees under Title 35 or Title 15 of the United States Code to “recover the aggregate estimated costs to the Office for processing, activities, services, and materials relating to patents… and trademarks…, including administrative costs of the Office with respect to such patent or trademark fees.” Beginning on March 19, 2013, new fees will be instated, as published Friday, January 18, 2013, in the Code of Federal Registration, 37 C.F.R. Parts 1, 41, and 42 (“CFR”).

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories