Intellectual Property

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commil v. Cisco held that a good-faith belief of a patent’s invalidity, standing alone, is insufficient to provide a defense to a claim of inducing another’s infringement of a United States Patent.

Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit in Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ, Inc. clarified the standard by which a reference may be considered prior art for the purposes of an obviousness determination.

Two weeks ago, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, writing on her own behalf, submitted comments in Investigation No. 337-TA-613, Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (the 613 Investigation) on how the International Trade Commission (ITC) should approach the adjudication of the FRAND defense when conducting the public interest analysis.

Last week, in response to a request for a preliminary ruling by a German court hearing a patent infringement action brought by Huawei against ZTE, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) took up the question of whether the assertion of patents that have been declared essential to the practice of a standard (standard-essential patents or SEPs) may run afoul of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

On July 21, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a key decision regarding the meaning of various provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). See Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Fed. Cir. Case No. 2015-1499.

Yesterday the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) added a recent order to its list of Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices. 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez took the unusual step on July 13, 2015, of filing a written submission on her own behalf — and expressly not on behalf of her agency — in Investigation No. 337-TA-613, Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (the 613 Investigation).

On June 26, 2015, the ITC handed down its Commission Opinion in Certain Loom Kits for Creating Linked Articles, Inv. No. 337-TA-923, Comm’n Op. (Feb. 3, 2015) (hereinafter “Loom Kits ”), granting a general exclusion order.

The Federal Circuit’s recent en banc opinion in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10082, *2 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (Williamson II) may result in courts finding that more claims include “means-plus-function” claim elements, which could significantly affect the scope and validity of those claims.

On June 23, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”) dismissing the complaints in four related actions for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,707,505 (the ‘505 Patent) on the ground of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.

PART III:  First, the JOBS Act requires the SEC to issue complex implementing rules prior to crowdfunding becoming a reality.  For any startup seeking funding through a crowdfunding source, the rules proposed by the SEC under the Act demand detailed disclosures regarding the company. The company must also describe exactly how the securities it is offering are being valued.

PART 2: he US government began to address these investment challenges through the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) in April 2012. While companies like Kickstarter allow startups to sell products or services, the JOBS Act envisions companies actually selling equity in themselves through crowdfunding campaigns. 

On June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”) that the method claims in U.S. Patent 6,258,540 (‘540 patent) for detecting paternally-inherited cell-free DNA (“cffDNA”) in maternal plasma or serum were not directed to patent eligible subject matter, and, therefore, were invalid. 

Politico, the popular political journalism publication, recently ran the story “Patent Reform Advocates: PTO Process Not Patent ‘Death Squad.’” The story was based on a blog post by patent reform advocate Unified Patents.

On June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, upholding the rule, first announced in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U. S. 29 (1964), that an agreement allowing a patent owner to collect royalty payments after a patent’s expiration is unlawful per se.

On June 16, the Federal Circuit issued its first-ever reversal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an America Invents Act post-grant proceeding. The opinion, drafted by Chief Judge Prost and joined by CAFC Judge Lourie and E.D. Tex. Judge Gilstrap, provides considerable guidance on claim construction and claim amendments in practice before the PTAB.

On June 15, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued Notice in the Federal Register announcing a new pilot program, the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot.

PART 1: Pebble Technology had an interesting goal.  It wanted to design and build a watch that could connect to iPhone and Android smartphones using Bluetooth. It wanted to allow the watch to alert a wearer with a silent vibration for incoming calls, emails and messages.

For only the fourth time in its history, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has granted a motion to amend in an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding, finding all substitute claims proposed by the patent owner patentable.

Administrative Law Judge Essex has made another important contribution to the ongoing conversation regarding the enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) at the International Trade Commission.