Intellectual Property

On January 18, 2022, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California sided with the majority of divided district courts, dismissing claims of willful and induced infringement that based the defendants’ required knowledge of the asserted patents on its receipt of the original complaint for patent infringement. Ravgen Inc. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., No. 21-cv-09011 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2022) ECF 146 - Order dismiss willful infringement

A recent order from the Northern District of California in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., No. 19-cv-06593 (Jan. 27, 2022) (“Edwards”), provides guidance regarding the ability (or inability) to use a prior Daubert ruling to discredit an expert witness at trial when such a ruling arose within the context of a different case. In addition, the order highlights a pitfall that can arise when an opposing party produces deficient damages-related discovery but is not pressed to supplement its discovery through a motion to compel.

The Federal Circuit recently provided strategic guidance for defending software claims against Alice challenges that claims recite ineligible patent subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Mentone Solutions LLC v. Digi International Inc., defendants alleged that representative claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,952,413, directed towards allocating data channels using shifted uplink status flags in cellular mobile stations, claimed only an abstract idea. The District Court agreed and dismissed. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that claim 5 is not directed to an abstract idea because the claim improved the functionality of a computer.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), in an important new opinion, recently extended a series of final determinations that complainants had satisfied the “economic prong” of Section 337’s domestic injury requirement.  This decision reinforces the Commission’s critical role in defending U.S. intellectual property rights and bodes well for patent owners.  In Certain Percussive Massage Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1206, the Commission found that complainant Hyperice Inc. proved it had “significant” domestic industry investments in labor, notwithstanding that all of the domestic industry devices were manufactured overseas.  Indeed, thus far in 2022, the Commission has found the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement satisfied in all four public final determinations.  In 2021 and 2022 combined, the Commission found the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement satisfied in 80% of all patent-based investigations that resolved on the merits, demonstrating that Complainants with well-organized, substantiated domestic industry cases continue to meet with success at the ITC.

Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York addressed an issue of first impression concerning what constitutes “misappropriation” under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in a decision potentially relevant to cases involving allegations of trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA against a former employee. This case is worthy of note for any trade secret practitioner and is an important reminder that when pleading alleged trade secret misappropriation, it is not only important to describe the trade secret with sufficient particularity, but also to sufficiently describe the alleged misappropriation so as to illustrate the alleged acquisition of the trade secret by improper means or disclosure of the trade secret without consent.

Recently, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a notice informing the public that it will be implementing a pilot program (called the Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot Program, or the “DSMER Pilot Program”) to determine the value of allowing applicants to defer responding to 35 USC § 101 rejections (commonly known as “101 rejections” or “Alice rejections”). The Program is only available for certain applications, and certain procedures are required for participation; however, the Program has the potential to encourage more efficient patent prosecution. Below we answer some questions patent applicants are likely to have about the Program.

Earlier this month, in Novartis Pharms. Corp., Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., et al., No. 2021-1070, the Federal Circuit issued a helpful decision concerning the not-often-discussed written description requirement. The panel specifically addressed whether sufficient written description can exist for claim limitations that are not explicitly or directly disclosed in the specification (including negative claim limitations). This new ruling provides patent owners with a useful guide for successfully navigating similar written description challenges in patent infringement cases. For example, Patent Owners seeking to combat written description requirement challenges should proffer expert witnesses who can clearly articulate how they understand the patent description in relation to the claims and what portions of that description support the same.

On January 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower granted a defendant’s motion to exclude an expert’s damages theory for violating the entire market value rule, reminding plaintiffs everywhere to use caution when applying the sales of an entire product as a royalty base.

As a Patent Owner in an instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR), there are dozens of considerations to bear in mind – from strategically approaching depositions and maximizing expert testimony, to drafting the final say in your sur-reply. We provide a summary of key takeaways from throughout the series and invite you to access all of our tips for more detail on Surviving an Instituted IPR.

As 2022 begins and intellectual property (IP) strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2021.  According to many readers, hot topics included efficient and expeditious U.S. patent prosecution, new copyright and trademark laws, and standard essential patents (SEPs). Below are 5 of the most read IP Posts on Mintz.com from last year.

Unauthorized use of a trademark on the Internet occurs often and in many forms, usually involving the profiting, whether intentionally or unintentionally, from the goodwill associated with a trademark belonging to someone else. Such use, however, does not always rise to the level of trademark infringement. Unauthorized use of a trademark is only infringing if the particular use causes likely confusion among consumers. The most common type of confusion is confusion over source, which occurs at the time of purchase, but confusion can also arise as to affiliation, connection, or sponsorship, and confusion does not necessarily need to occur at the time of purchase.

In what appears to be an effort to standardize and professionalize its mediation practices and procedures, China recently enacted new rules governing the mediation of intellectual property disputes. Issued by the Mediation Center of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, a national foreign trade body, the new rules create a framework that can guide IP dispute mediation nationwide. It appears that China is hoping that these steps will make it a more popular mediation forum among foreign parties.

Is an unused registered trademark preventing you from clearing or registering your mark? Or was the blocking registration filed for goods or services that were not in use when the registrant declared that they were? The Trademark Modernization Act’s (“TMA”) new procedures for cancelling unused registrations, or registrations with goods and services that were not in use at the time of declaration, are now effective. 

Quentin Tarantino recently announced plans to auction off seven scenes from the 1994 motion picture Pulp Fiction as non-fungible tokens or NFTs. These “Tarantino NFTs” will include a collection of high-resolution digital scans of the original handwritten Pulp Fiction screenplay. The NFTs each contain scans of the uncut screenplay pages themselves that form a single scene from the movie. They will be auctioned on the NFT marketplace OpenSea and are built on the blockchain platform Secret Network, which launched in February 2020.

Tasked with starting an innovation protection and patent development program at your company but do not know where to begin? This three part series describes the key components to a patent development program for any company, small or large. This second installment in the series describes subject matter for educating the innovator technical team tasked with developing or evaluating potential patentable innovations within a company.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently thwarted an attempt by big tech companies such as Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel, to rid themselves of discretionary denials under the Fintiv factors. While these companies will almost assuredly seek other avenues to dismantle such discretionary denials, last week’s developments are a win for patent owners in the short term.

In "ROHM Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc.", th Federal Circuit held that an arbitrator, not a federal district court, should decide whether a dispute arising from a technology license is subject to mandatory arbitration. Agreeing with a long line of decisions from other circuits, the Federal Circuit found that where an agreement incorporates by reference rules allowing an arbitrator to determine arbitrability, those rules should be given effect and an arbitrator, not a court, should decide whether the dispute is subject to arbitration.

Computer-based inventions – especially in the machine learning (ML), bioinformatics, and artificial intelligence (AI) fields – are susceptible to subject matter eligibility challenges. Subject matter eligibility challenges may prevent a patent application from being granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and may even be asserted to invalidate a patent post-grant. In recent years, the Federal Circuit has implemented a multi-step test to determine whether patent claims would survive a subject matter eligibility challenge.

On November 5, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 21-1154, affirmed a decision from the District Court of New Jersey dismissing a suit brought by Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”) under Rule 12(b)(6) for improper venue as to defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) and Mylan Inc. and for the failure to state a claim against defendant Mylan N.V. Celgene had brought suit after MPI submitted an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Pomalyst used to treat multiple myeloma. In assessing venue, the court held that it was MPI’s ANDA submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and not the sending of a notice letter to Celgene in New Jersey, that was the artificial act of infringement pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act. The district court thus held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that venue in New Jersey was improper.