Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Category: Patent

Uniloc v. Rackspace – 35 U.S.C. § 101 Lockdown in the Eastern District of Texas

by

Posted in Patent

On April 4, 2013

In Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., Eastern District of Texas Chief District Judge Leonard Davis granted Rackspace’s motion to dismiss Uniloc’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to allege infringement of a patentable claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This ruling is notable for several reasons: the Court granted an early motion to dismiss for the defendant in a historically pro-patentee jurisdiction (E.D. Texas), and the early dismissal resulted from the court finding the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

An End to the Seed War: Monsanto and DuPont Call Off Their Patent and Antitrust Lawsuits as a Decision in Bowman v. Monsanto is Pending

by

Posted in Licensing / Patent

On April 2, 2013

On March 25, seed giants DuPont and Monsanto entered into technology licensing agreements that ended their ongoing patent and antitrust lawsuits. According to the terms of the agreement, DuPont will pay at least $1.75 billion in licensing and royalty fees to Monsanto from 2014 to 2023. These payments include fixed royalty payments from 2014 to 2017, totaling $802 million, and per-unit based royalty payments from 2019 to 2023, subject to annual minimums, totaling $950 million. DuPont and Monsanto also will dismiss their respective patent and antitrust lawsuits, including the August 2012 damage award of $1 billion against DuPont that have been pending since 2009. Further details on these agreements can be found in DuPont and Monsanto’s joint March 26 press release and DuPont’s March 26 Form 8-K.

Patent and Copyright First-Sale and International Exhaustion Standards to Remain in Conflict … For Now!

by

Posted in Patent

On April 1, 2013

On the heels of its March 19, 2013, decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., where the Supreme Court held that international exhaustion , i.e., an ex-U.S. first-sale rule applies to copyrights, the Court has surprisingly denied Ninestar Technology Co. Ltd.’s (“Ninestar”) petition for certiorari to consider whether international exhaustion applies to patents.

IPXI Clears U.S. Department of Justice Hurdle … Will It Launch?

by

Posted in Patent

On March 28, 2013

We have reported extensively on the pending Intellectual Property Exchange International (“IPXI”), the world’s first proposed exchange for licensing intellectual property. In an email blast sent Wednesday morning, Ian McClure, the Director at IPXI, indicated that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) concluded an eight-month business review of IPXI and issued a Business Review Letter (“BRL”) that highlighted IPXI’s benefits and efficiencies. Importantly, according to IPXI, the DoJ declined to take any enforcement position against the IPXI at this time, as it did not know if IPXI’s activities would raise competitive concerns after operating. The BRL noted several benefits to the IPXI model, including increased licensing efficiency, sublicense transferability and greater transparency.

The Patent Expert Pivot

by

Posted in Patent

On March 25, 2013

Parties to patent infringement actions heavily rely on experts to explain their “case.” The finder of fact, whether judge or jury, often views them as detached guides who truly understand the often esoteric subject technology, or other issues, given the expert’s credentials. Patent issues such as infringement, claim construction, validity, enforceability and damages, which are critical to a case, may rise or fall on these experts. Accordingly, and despite their “expert” status, there is no shortage of considerations surrounding them.

Federal Circuit Limits Discovery in Inter Partes Re-examination Proceedings

by

Posted in Patent

On March 22, 2013

We reported last week on the discovery limitations under United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) guidelines as they pertain to inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. On Wednesday, in Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., the Federal Circuit ruled that discovery is not allowed in inter partes re-examinations. The case stemmed from Abbott’s motion to quash two subpoenas duces tecum issued by Cordis which sought documents for use in a pending IPR re-examination. Id. at 2. In the underlying action, Cordis sued Abbott in the District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of two of its patents directed to drug-eluting stents. Id. at 3. The PTO agreed to inter partes re-examination of the patents and by office action, the examiners found both patents obvious. Id. at 3-4.

Treble Damages for Willful Patent Infringement Become Elusive

by

Posted in Patent

On March 20, 2013

Accused patent infringers continue to breath easier as an ever more challenging path to treble damages persists. Recent decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit placed the objective prong of the In re Seagate test toward establishing willful infringement squarely with a judge. The impact on appeal has taken effect. Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), direct patent infringement is a “strict liability” offense. In certain cases, 35 U.S.C. § 284 may provide “up to three times” actual damages. A determination that the accused infringer willfully infringed is used to determine whether enhanced damages are warranted. Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc. 523 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Limitations on Discovery in Inter Partes Review Proceedings

by

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On March 12, 2013

Companies accused of patent infringement have a number of basic alternatives to contemplate: settle the matter; defend the suit; or consider resort to a post grant patent proceeding at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). With an eye towards cost, risk and accurate resolution, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings are an attractive alternative to settling or defending.

NJIPLA to Host the 2013 Patent Litigation Seminar

by

Posted in Patent

On March 11, 2013

On Wednesday, March 13, the New Jersey Intellectual Property Association will host the 2013 Patent Litigation Seminar at the Woodbridge Hilton in Iselin, NJ. This seminar will cover a range of important patent litigation topics such as: The Divided Court on Divided Infringement: What Comes Next? Willful Infringement: The Federal Circuit is Listening. The Clear Line Blurs – Where is the “Safe Harbor” of 271(e)(1) after Classen v. GSK & Momenta v. Amphastar? Prometheus v. Mayo: Judicial Activism or Reality Check? Observations on the Gene Patenting Debate.

“SHIELD Act” Reintroduced to Combat NPEs…

by

Posted in Patent

On March 7, 2013

We previously reported on the proposed Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2012 (“SHIELD Act of 2012”), introduced in the House of Representatives as HR 6245 last year. This Act, intended to discourage frivolous patent litigations by so-called non-practicing entities (“NPEs,” or sometimes referred to as “patent trolls”), proposed adding new section 35 U.S.C. § 285A to make fee-shifting available under certain circumstances in patent litigations involving computer hardware and software patents. More specifically, it provided that fees could be awarded to a prevailing defendant upon finding that the party alleging infringement did not have a “reasonable likelihood of succeeding.” As written, the SHIELD Act of 2012 failed to garner sufficient support and died in committee.

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