Tagged: Patent Infringement
A recent Supreme Court decision has held that an accused infringer’s good-faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to inducement of infringement. In Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Commil sued Cisco alleging infringement of its patent relating to a method of implementing short-range wireless networks. Commil alleged that Cisco had infringed Commil’s patent by making and using networking equipment and that Cisco induced others to infringe the patent by selling the infringement equipment for them to use.
A recent district court decision has held that patent eligibility arguments not raised in invalidity contentions served pursuant to local patent rules are waived. In Good Technology Corporation v. MobileIron, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-5826, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Defendant MobileIron, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on patent eligibility arguments that were not disclosed in either original or amended invalidity contentions.
On April 29, 2015, Senators Grassley, Leahy, Corny, Schumer, Lee, Hatch, and Klobuchar introduced another patent reform bill known as the Protecting Talent and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015 (“PATENT Act”). This bill includes many provisions similar to the previously introduced Innovation Act of 2015, but takes a slightly different approach on some key issues.
Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved yet another patent reform bill to curtail misleading and frivolous demand letters sent by patent assertion entities (also known as “patent trolls”). The legislation, approved by a vote of 30 to 20, is known as the Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act, or TROL Act (H.R. 2045). This bill aims to protect businesses from frivolous demands while preserving the ability of patent holders to legitimately protect their intellectual property. The overall goal is to curtail “certain bad faith communications in connection with the assertion of a United States patent [that] are unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and for other purposes.”
Recently, Senators Chris Coons, Dick Durbin, and Mazie Hirono introduced an alternative patent reform legislation to the Innovation Act of 2015. This bill, known as the as Support Technology and Research for Our Nations Grown Patents Act (“STRONG Patents Act”), aims to strengthen the rights of patent holders. According to Sen. Coons, “[t]he STRONG Patents Act includes targeted thoughtful reforms to combat abuse where it’s prevalent while ensuring our rich innovation ecosystem remains vibrant.” The goal is to “move past the false premise that the only way to deter ‘patent troll’ abuses is to enact sweeping reforms that weaken patent protections for everyone . . . . and [instead we aim] to narrowly target and deter abusive troll behavior while preserving the ability of legitimate patent holders to protect their innovation,” said Senator Durbin.
CryoLife, Inc. has appealed the preliminary injunction recently issued against it in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware barring sales of its PerClot Topical blood-clotting powder product. CryoLife Inc. v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al., Dkt. Entry No. 121, Notice of Appeal. CryoLife has asked United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction based on CryoLife’s failure to present (1) an alternative non-infringement argument based on Medafor, Inc.’s proposed claim construction and (2) expert analysis to support its invalidity contentions. As security, Medafor has agreed to pay CryoLife $100,000 if the injunction is overturned.
Recently, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte reintroduced a patent reform bill, known as the Innovation Act of 2015 (H.R. 9) (“The Act”). This reintroduced bipartisan bill is substantially similar to its predecessor, Innovation Act of 2013. The Innovation Act of 2013 had received overwhelming support by the House of Representatives, but was ultimately tabled, along with other patent reform bills, due to bipartisan disputes.
On April 1, 2015, The Federal Circuit dismissed JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s (“JPMC”) interlocutory appeal of a district court ruling denying a motion to stay pending a covered business method review (“CBMR”). Addressing an issue of first impression, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under §18(b)(2) of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) to review the district court’s order because JPMC moved for a stay while JPMC’s CBM petition was under review by the USPTO Director and a CBM proceeding had yet to be instituted. In Intellectual Ventures v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Intellectual Ventures (“IV”) sued JPMC alleging infringement of five patents. JPMC responded by filing a motion to stay pending the results of four CBMR petitions that it was planning to file. Immediately after, JPMC filed two CBM petitions covering only two of the asserted patents.
District Court Judge Sue L. Robinson, U.S.D.J., of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted a rare preliminary injunction to the declaratory judgment defendant in a patent infringement action, highlighting the importance of presenting infringement arguments under both parties’ claim constructions and expert analysis that supports invalidity. CryoLife Inc. v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al., No. 14-559, Dkt. Entry No. 116, Mem. Order. The injunction bars sales of PerClot Topical, CryoLife’s blood-clotting powder product.
A recent decision by the Federal Circuit, Helferich Patent Licensing LLC v. The New York Times Co., has held that the applicability of the patent exhaustion defense may be limited to a claim-by-claim determination depending on the nature of the licensed rights granted. In Helferich, the patent owner held rights to a portfolio of patents with claims relating to providing content to wireless handsets and relating to methods for updating content stored on the wireless handsets. Prior to bringing the present litigation, Helferich had licensed handset manufacturers under the patents with the license grants being directed specifically to the handset claims. Subsequently, the patent owner brought suit against The New York Times Company and others asserting infringement of the content claims.
