Gibbons Law Alert
In PhatRat Technology, LLC v. Riddell, PhatRat, the purported exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,386,401 and 7,693,668 relating to helmet impact reporting technology (“the PhatRat patents”), sued sporting goods manufacturer Riddell in the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of the PhatRat patents. The PhatRat patents issued in June 2008 and April 2010, respectively.
Facebook, and its “Like” button, seem to be ubiquitous. Well, last week, Facebook and social bookmarking service, AddThis, were sued in the Eastern District of Virginia for willful infringement of two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,415,316 and 6,289,362. These patents were filed by a Norwegian computer programmer, Joannes Jozef Everardus Van Der Meer, in the late 1990s. The ‘316 patent is directed to enabling a user to create a “personal diary,” which the complaint states “today would be called ‘social media.'” The ‘362 patent discloses techniques for automatic transfer “of third-party content from a content-provider’s website to the user’s personal diary page.” The complaint alleges that Facebook’s “Like” button and other features infringe the ‘316 and ‘362 patents.
In one of the apparently few judicial decisions of its kind to date, the District of Delaware recently granted a motion to stay six patent infringement actions, pursuant to Section 18 of the America Invents Act (AIA), pending resolution of post-grant review proceedings in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to reexamine the validity of the so-called covered business method (CBM) patents at issue. As defined by AIA § 18(d)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.301, a CBM is “a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.”
Discovery of computer source code–either through production, inspection, or deposition–is one of the more contentious aspects of patent litigation. Indeed, “few tasks excite a defendant less . . . . Engineers and management howl at the notion of providing strangers, and especially a fierce competitor, access to the crown jewels. Counsel struggle to understand even exactly what code exists and exactly how it can be made available for reasonable inspection. All sorts of questions are immediately posed. . . . Put simply, source code production is disruptive, expensive, and fraught with monumental opportunities to screw up.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-1846, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62971, *10-11 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (ECF No. 898).
The ongoing Kodak bankruptcy has engendered interest in understanding the role of IP-related licenses in bankruptcy. The recent decision in In re Spansion also merits consideration. There, following settlement of Spansion’s 2008 ITC patent infringement action against Samsung and Apple, Spansion and Apple entered into a letter agreement in February 2009 whereby Spansion agreed to dismiss its ITC action against Apple and promised to refrain from filing future actions relating to its asserted patents. In turn, Apple agreed to not disbar Spansion as a supplier and to consider Spansion for future products. In March 2009, Spansion filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
We previously reported on the Federal Circuit’s twin en banc decisions in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. and McKesson Techs. Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012). These rulings dramatically altered the enforceability of method patent claims by relaxing the rules for proving liability in induced infringement cases. As anticipated, both Epic Systems (“Epic”), and Limelight Networks (“Limelight”) filed separate petitions for certiorari.
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”).
The America Invents Act (AIA), created a transitional program for post-grant review of certain patents claiming subject matter referred to as covered business methods (“CBM”). As defined by AIA § 18(d)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.301, a CBM is “a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301 does, however, provide an exception for technological inventions. Whether a claim recites a technical feature is determined based on whether the claim is “novel and unobvious over the prior art; and [whether the claim] solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” Id.
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied Rates Technology Inc.’s petition for writ of certiorari to hear whether a pre-litigation no-challenge provision is void under Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969) as the Second Circuit found. We previously discussed the petition, the Second Circuit’s holding, and the no-challenge clause which prevents a licensee from challenging the validity of a patent.
Deferring judgment until after he hears testimony prior to trial, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the District of Delaware nonetheless indicated in a recent Memorandum Opinion that he was inclined to exclude plaintiff’s patent damages expert. In AVM Techs., LLC v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 10-610-RGA, plaintiff AVM sued Intel for patent infringement relating to U.S. Patent No. 5,859,547, which claims improved dynamic logic circuits used in microprocessors. Intel filed a Daubert motion seeking to exclude AVM’s damages expert, who had opined that AVM was entitled to reasonable royalty damages of over $150 – $300 million.