Tagged: Patent Litigation
Last month, we reported on seed giant, Monsanto’s Supreme Court victory involving the question of patent exhaustion with regard to its sale of seed incorporating its patented seed technologies. On Monday, June 10, Monsanto appeared to emerge victorious from another litigation related to its seed technology and business when the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that a coalition of organic farmers and seed sellers had no standing to seek declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity with respect to Monsanto’s patented seed technologies.
We have recently posted on various developments relating to the surge of litigations involving non-practicing entities, or patent assertion entities, also called “patent trolls.” Last week, the Obama administration launched its latest attack on these litigious parties. Last Tuesday, the President issued seven legislative recommendations and five executive orders aimed to reduce the number of patent troll cases being filed in federal court. Those recommendations and orders can be found at the White House’s website.
Last spring, we reported Twitter’s introduction of a novel employee patent assignment plan called the “Innovator’s Patent Agreement” (“IPA”). In short, the IPA is a patent assignment agreement, or transfer of patent ownership from an inventor/employee to a company, where the inventor retains control over how the patent is used. Twitter’s IPA now is in play.
Somewhere, someone must have taken the famous cartoon of Elmer Fudd, in full hunting regalia, and changed the caption to read, “Shhhhhhhhhhh, I’m hunting Twolls.” (After securing the appropriate IP permissions, of course.) This past fall, we posed the hypothetical question of whether it was open season for patent trolls, euphemistically referred to as non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) or patent assertion entities (“PAEs”), in the wake of the new 35 U.S.C. § 299.
IP practitioners should read and heed Judge Martini’s recent decision in Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. DATATRAK Int’l, Inc., 2-12-cv-04748 (D.N.J. May 13, 2013, Docket 33), which addresses considerations for declaratory judgment jurisdiction in a patent dispute. The case involved two patents owned by DATATRAK, the “parent” ‘087 patent, and the “child” ‘294 patent, which issued from a continuation application.
This Spring has been fruitful for seed giant, Monsanto. We reported earlier that Monsanto and rival DuPont entered into technology licensing agreements, ending nearly four years of patent and antitrust litigation. On Monday, May 13, Monsanto’s cornucopia arrived, with the Supreme Court ruling unanimously in its favor. This case revolved around the question of whether the doctrine of patent exhaustion allowed a farmer who bought patented seeds to, without permission, reproduce the seeds through planting and harvesting. The seeds in question were glyphosate herbicide-resistant soybean seeds, covered under two patents issued to Monsanto.
A recent non-published case from the District Court of New Jersey serves as a reminder that navigating the damages phase of patent infringement is just as important as proving liability. In Unicom Monitoring, LLC v. Cencom, Inc., Judge Cooper court denied the patent owner damages despite the fact that it succeeded in proving infringement. The patent at issue covered a device for rerouting alarm reports through a telephone line. Defendant Cencom was found to infringe claim 1 of the patent. Before the trial on Unicom’s damages, Cencom moved for summary judgment to dismiss Unicom’s damages claim because it failed to present expert evidence. Cencom also moved for summary judgment on injunctive relief because Unicom failed to establish its burden under the factors articulated by the Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC. Cencom argued that the only proof Unicom provided supporting Unicom’s reasonable royalty position was attorney argument, Cencom’s sales records, and statements from Unicom’s owners. The Court held that while expert testimony is not required to prove reasonable royalties, it agreed with Cencom that Unicom failed to establish competent proof to support its claim.
In Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., Eastern District of Texas Chief District Judge Leonard Davis granted Rackspace’s motion to dismiss Uniloc’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to allege infringement of a patentable claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This ruling is notable for several reasons: the Court granted an early motion to dismiss for the defendant in a historically pro-patentee jurisdiction (E.D. Texas), and the early dismissal resulted from the court finding the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
On March 25, seed giants DuPont and Monsanto entered into technology licensing agreements that ended their ongoing patent and antitrust lawsuits. According to the terms of the agreement, DuPont will pay at least $1.75 billion in licensing and royalty fees to Monsanto from 2014 to 2023. These payments include fixed royalty payments from 2014 to 2017, totaling $802 million, and per-unit based royalty payments from 2019 to 2023, subject to annual minimums, totaling $950 million. DuPont and Monsanto also will dismiss their respective patent and antitrust lawsuits, including the August 2012 damage award of $1 billion against DuPont that have been pending since 2009. Further details on these agreements can be found in DuPont and Monsanto’s joint March 26 press release and DuPont’s March 26 Form 8-K.
On the heels of its March 19, 2013, decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., where the Supreme Court held that international exhaustion , i.e., an ex-U.S. first-sale rule applies to copyrights, the Court has surprisingly denied Ninestar Technology Co. Ltd.’s (“Ninestar”) petition for certiorari to consider whether international exhaustion applies to patents.
