Tagged: Patent Infringement
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.”
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.
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).
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.
Trademark holders no longer have to worry about not being able to dismiss a case by entering into a properly drafted covenant not to sue. In Already, LLC, dba Yums v. Nike, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Second Circuit’s opinion by ruling that Nike’s covenant not to sue Yums for trademark infringement was sufficiently broad to render moot Yums’ challenge to the validity of Nike’s asserted registration. Yums had no reasonable apprehension of litigation and Nike met its burden of showing that Yums could not be sued later. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion, which required a high standard for parties issuing the covenant, as they bear a “formidable burden” to establish that it is “absolutely clear” that the allegedly wrongful conduct cannot reasonably be expected to reoccur. Remand was not necessary under the circumstances, because the Court found that it “cannot conceive” of any shoe that Yums could make “that would potentially infringe Nike’s trademark and yet not fall under the Covenant.” Arguably, the Court construed the covenant so broadly as to exclude a claim of infringement based on Yums’ sale of the exact shoe covered by Nike’s challenged registration.
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Apotex seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s May 7, 2012, ruling that affirmed the District Court of New Jersey’s judgment that Otsuka’s patents covering its blockbuster drug Abilify© are valid and not obvious. In that ruling, the Federal Circuit found no error in the District Court’s application of the so-called lead compound test; an analytical framework in chemical art cases that seeks — in an obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — to determine whether a POSA (“person of ordinary skill in the art”) would select the proffered prior art as a “lead compound.” Specifically, in a lead compound analysis, the Court will consider: the hypothetical person of skill in the art’s identification of a lead compound, structural differences between the proposed lead compound and the claimed invention, motivation or teachings in the prior art to make the necessary changes to arrive at the claimed invention, and whether the person of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such structural changes.
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.
On November 30, 2012, Representative Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 6621 to “correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and title 35, United States Code.” The act seeks to provide a number of technical corrections to a variety of issues, including: eliminating a 9 month dead zone for inter partes review allowing inter partes reviews to be filed at any time for applications with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013; extending the time for filing the inventor’s oath or declaration until the payment of the issue fee; eliminating the prohibition on post grant review for reissue patents with narrowing amendments; clarifying the standards for initiating derivation proceedings; clarifying the calculation for patent term adjustment; and repealing 35 USC 373, which restricted the types of inventors or applicants that could file PCT applications at the U.S. Patent Office.
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.
