Tagged: Patent Infringement
Last week the Federal Circuit handed down one of its more anticipated decisions regarding jurisdiction in cases brought under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) (aka Hatch-Waxman or ANDA litigation). In its holding, the Federal Circuit stated that a “[defendant’s] ANDA filings and its distribution channels” are enough to “establish that [the defendant’s] plans to market its proposed [ANDA product in the forum state]” are enough to meet the minimum-contacts requirement to establish jurisdiction. It further held “there is no substantial argument that considerations of unfairness override the minimum-contacts basis for [the forum state’s] exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over” the defendants. This holding is much broader than the underlying district court rulings and limited the analysis to specific jurisdiction without addressing the underlying general jurisdictional questions.
In 2005, the Federal Circuit established the framework for the construction of patent claim terms. In its landmark holding in Philips v. AWH Corp., the Federal Circuit stated that “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning . . . [and] that the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . .”
On February 12, 2016, the en banc Federal Circuit, in a 10-2 decision in Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc., reaffirmed its long-standing rules that: (1) the exhaustion doctrine does not apply to patented articles sold subject to single-use/no-resale restrictions that were communicated to the buyer at the time of sale; and (2) the exhaustion doctrine does not apply to the sale of patented goods outside of the U.S.
The Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology recently hosted a program to explore significant changes underway for the European patent landscape. At this program, Dr. Christoph Cordes, Partner at the German law firm Esche Schümann Commichau, presented an overview of the new European Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court, and was joined by several panelists in a discussion about the anticipated impact of this new European patent regime.
On December 1, 2015, revised Federal Rule Civil Procedures went into effect and changed pleading requirements for patent cases. The new rules were adopted by the Supreme Court on April 29, 2015, based on recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States and will eliminate Form 18. Form 18 set for a bare bones requirement for patent infringement complaint and merely required the plaintiff to provide notice of its claims. Form 18 simply required: (1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that plaintiff owns the patents; (3) a statement that defendant has been infringing the patent by making, selling and using the device embodying the patent; (4) a statement that plaintiff has given the defendant notice of its infringement; and (5) a demand for injunction and/or damages.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the standard for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The Court was specifically asked to reject the rigid two-part test set forth by the Federal Circuit in In re Seagate, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007), which requires the court to determine whether an alleged infringer: (1) acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent; and (2) this objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.
Recently, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled in SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC that laches remains a viable defense in patent infringement actions. In doing so, the Federal Circuit rejected the extension of the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., which held that the laches defense does not apply in copyright cases because the copyright statute provides a three year statute of limitations for bringing an infringement suit.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently granted yet another writ of mandamus, this time directing a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas to stay proceedings and decide a motion to transfer that had been pending for over nine months. In re: Google, Inc., 2015-138 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015). This decision is a part of a continuing trend, since 2008, of the Federal Circuit taking issue with rulings from the Eastern District of Texas denying transfer motions in patent infringement actions or denying the stay of proceedings in favor of an action pending in another jurisdiction.
Recently, the Federal Circuit held that it lacks jurisdiction to review non-final Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decisions, such as decisions to vacate or terminate a post-grant proceeding. In GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., the Federal Circuit denied GEA’s petition for writ of mandamus directing the PTAB to withdraw an order in which it terminated GEA’s five pending IPR proceedings on the grounds that these IPRs should have never been instituted. The PTAB reasoned that GEA failed to identify all real-parties-in-interest and, thus, the petitions were incomplete.
On July 9, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final written decision made by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc. (CBM2012-00001), the PTAB’s first instituted Covered Business Method Review (“CBM”) Proceeding under § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). As a basis for the affirmance, the court established several important guidelines concerning Federal Circuit review of CBM proceedings which are highlighted below.
