Gibbons Law Alert
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has rarely found Internet-based patent claims challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice to be patent-eligible. The Court’s recent decision in BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC marks just the third such occurrence.
We recently reported on the Federal Circuit’s holdings in Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc. and AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., where it held that Mylan was subject to jurisdiction in Delaware because “Mylan’s ANDA filings constitute formal acts that reliably indicate plans to engage in marketing of the proposed generic drugs.” Earlier this month, the first decision from the District of New Jersey District applying the Federal Circuits ruling was rendered. In Helsinn Healthcare S.A., et al. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 15-2077 (MLC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45826 (D.N.J. April 5, 2016), Judge Mary L. Cooper held that sufficient minimum contacts is to find specific jurisdiction is established by the fact that Hospira filed an ANDA seeking to market a generic version of Helsinn’s Aloxi® product that if approved, the marketing of will take place in New Jersey.
In the increasingly crowded field of pay-for-delay litigation, the FTC blazed a new trail last week when – for the first time – it sued a branded drug maker for agreeing not to launch its own “authorized generic” in competition with a generic competitor. The so-called “no-AG commitment” was part of a deal struck by Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. in exchange for a promise by Impax Laboratories to postpone by 2½ years its release of a lower-cost generic version of Endo’s lucrative Opana ER painkiller. That deal, according to the Complaint filed on March 30 in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, let Endo prolong its alleged monopoly and, with it, the supracompetitive profits it earned from Opana. Meanwhile, the lower prices that come with the entry of a generic were delayed.
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 . . . .”
In two related opinions (Docket Nos. 2015–1361, 2015–1369, 2015–1366, 2015–1368 and Docket No. 2015-1364) issued February 22, 2016 (each captioned PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated and remanded portions of decisions rendered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in five separate inter partes review proceedings initiated by Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC (“Corning”) against PPC Broadband, Inc. (“PPC”). PPC is the owner of three patents at issue in the inter partes review proceedings (US 8,287,320, US 8,323,060, and US 8,313,353). The patents are related and directed to features of a coaxial cable connector. The CAFC decisions focus primarily on claim construction issues relating to the application of the PTAB’s “broadest reasonable construction” (“BRC”) claim construction standard and illustrate how the Court may evaluate the reasonableness of claim constructions in PTAB decisions on appeal.
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.
A summary review of green patent complaints filed in 2015 reveals that LED and Smart Grid technologies were the primary areas of dispute. Complaints filed in 2015 in areas such as biofuels, hybrid vehicles, and solar reflect the growth in clean energy patents issued in these technology sectors. LED Technology – The Federal Energy Star website says that LED lighting, when designed well, is different from incandescent and compact fluorescent lighting in that LED lighting is more efficient, durable, versatile, and longer lasting. In line with the growth of LED technology, this LED technology led with the number of patent complaints filed in 2015. At the end of 2015, Bluestone Innovations LLC filed 13 complaints against not only other LED manufacturers, but also retailers asserting infringement of Bluestone’s U.S. Patent No. 6,163,557, which directs to group III-V nitride films. The accused products in Bluestone’s suits are LED lightbulbs with group III-V nitride epitaxial films.
On January 22, 2016, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) in an America Invents Act review, after ruling that the PTAB did not adequately describe its reasons for finding a Cutsforth Inc. brush holder patent invalid.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cuzzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, in which it will review the first Inter Partes Review (IPR) decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) created under the America Invents Act. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cuzzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, in which it will review the first Inter Partes Review (IPR) decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) created under the America Invents Act. The Court will specifically review: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that, in an IPR proceeding, the PTAB may construe claims in an issued patent according to their “broadest reasonable interpretation” (“BRI”) rather than their “plain and ordinary meaning;” and Even if the Board exceeded its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR proceeding is judicially non-reviewable.