Gibbons Law Alert
In August, we reported that a decision in the en banc Federal Circuit rehearings of Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and McKesson Techs. Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp. , 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2011) appeared to be imminent. As predicted, on August 31, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc, per curiam opinion deciding both cases.
We previously reported on developments in various United States Courts of Appeal decisions concerning reverse payments in Hatch-Waxman litigation settlements – that is, payments made by branded pharmaceutical patent holders to generic challengers to postpone market entry of the generic product. Most recently, as we reported here, the Third Circuit in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig. bucked prior holdings of the Eleventh, Second, and Federal Circuits, ruling that a reverse payment is prima facie evidence of an antitrust violation and, therefore, serves as evidence of unreasonable restraints of trade. In light of the Third Circuit’s divergent decision from other circuit precedent, many predicted a subsequent Petition for Certiorari.
In Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., a recent Eastern District of Texas decision, Chief District Judge Leonard Davis provided guidance on the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 (“Rule 20”) joinder and Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (“Rule 42”) consolidation in patent infringement cases post-enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). Norman IP brought suit against Lexmark and others on September 15, 2011, one day before the AIA was signed into law. Norman IP later added an additional 23 defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for improper joinder or to sever, and Norman IP alternatively requested that any severed cases be consolidated under Rule 42. The Court granted defendants’ motion to sever and issued an order consolidating the cases for pretrial issues excluding venue.
In a prior blog, we reported that the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Already, LLC dba Yums v. Nike, Inc., No. 11-982, to an appeal from the Second Circuit’s decision affirming the Southern District of New York’s holding that a covenant not to sue entered in a trademark dispute ended the case and controversy between the parties.
Is the sale or assignment of a patent reportable? The Hart-Scott Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (“HSR”) and related rules require that all acquisitions of voting securities or assets exceeding a threshold amount be reported to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), as well as the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. The current threshold is $68.2 million.
In WM. Wrigley Jr. v. Cadbury Adams USA, a recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision related to chewing gum patents, Wrigley brought suit against Cadbury for infringement of its U.S. Patent Number 6,627,233 (“the ‘233 patent”) claiming a chewing gum including a combination of menthol and a physiological cooling agent, WS-23. Cadbury counterclaimed against Wrigley for infringement of Cadbury’s U.S. Patent Number 5,009,893 (“the ‘893 patent”) claiming a chewing gum including menthol and a similar cooling agent entitled WS-3.
As the summer rolls along, IP practitioners still await the Federal Circuit’s decisions in the en banc rehearings of Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and McKesson Techs. Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp., 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2011), which will address liability among multiple step performers accused of patent infringement.
We previously reported on the new 35 U.S.C. § 299 of the America Invents Act. This statute aims, inter alia, to reduce the ability of a patent owner to join multiple, unrelated defendants in a single action, which is a tactic often employed by non-practicing entities (“NPEs”), sometimes referred to as “patent trolls,” who press defendants for nuisance value settlements.
Starting on September 16th, seven important provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) will take effect: inter partes review, post grant review, supplemental examination, third-party “preissuance submission,” substitute statement in lieu of the inventor’s oath/declaration, transitional program for covered business method patents, and citation of patent owner statements in a patent file. Not all of the provisions are applicable to every patent and/or patent application. So, it is important that one consults with patent counsel before taking action. Below are helpful takeaways and summaries of these key changes. More information can be found on the USPTO’s website.
35 U.S.C. § 122(e), adopted last fall as part of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), conditions third party submissions to the USPTO for consideration and inclusion in an application file. Recently, the USPTO published the final rules regulating these submissions by third parties: Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submissions by Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 Fed. Reg. 42150 (2012). That is to say, the USPTO provided the requirements and guidance to anyone wishing to have the Office consider patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance during the examination of a pending application. The new rules pave the way for a third party to limit the scope of a pending patent application, particularly a competitor’s application, in a meaningful way.