Skip to main content

Patent Litigation

Viewpoints

Filter by:

WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical Corp. and Lost Profit Damages under § 271(f)

April 5, 2018 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Alexander Roan

Section 271 of Title 35 of the United States Code is the statute that codifies unlawful acts of patent infringement.  The most commonly asserted provisions are § 271(a) (direct infringement), § 271(b) (induced infringement), and § 271(c) (contributory infringement).

Patent Damages: How Many Essential Features in a Smart Phone?

March 30, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger

On March 20, 2018, the public version of Eastern District of Texas Magistrate Judge Roy Payne’s March 7, 2018 order tossing a $75 million jury verdict obtained by Ericsson against TCL Communication was released.

Doctrine of “Ancillary Venue” Does Not Trump TC Heartland

March 28, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci

Further to our ongoing coverage of post-TC Heartland patent litigation, in a recent development from the Northern District of Illinois, the court granted counterclaim defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in February that it was wrong for a judge to rule that a patent was ineligible under the Alice standard because there were underlying factual disputes that could not be resolved on summary judgement.

Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company

March 5, 2018 | Blog | By Stephen J. Akerley, Adrian Kwan

Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC, (“ATS”) appealed findings of invalidity for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Establishing Obviousness: A Fundamental Case of Evidence Over Arguments

March 1, 2018 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Lily Zhang

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision declaring various claims of patent owner Thales’ U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (“the ‘159 patent”) nonobvious.

Patent Exhaustion Defense Unavailable to Reseller after Impression Products

February 22, 2018 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Alexander Roan

In an application of 2017 U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Impressions Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc., the Northern District California in International Fruit Genetics LLC v. Orcharddepot.com, No. 4:17-cv-02905-JSW, recently denied a motion to dismiss a claim of patent infringement by holding that the patent exhaustion doctrine did not apply to a sale of a patented product that was outside the scope of the license granted by the patent owner. 
Recently, the District of Delaware held that a there was no work-product protection, and no common legal interest protection covering communications and documents shared between a patent owner and a third-party litigation financier, where the exchange occurred prior to any written agreement signed between the two parties and prior to the filing of any litigation.
On January 12, 2018 in Exmark Manufacturing Co. Inc., v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, the Federal Circuit once again addressed the issue of apportioning damages, an area of the law that continues to evolve.  The parties in Exmark are competitors in the commercial lawn mower market.

The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc.

February 14, 2018 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller

The Medicines Company (“MedCo”) appealed findings of no infringement made by the United District Court for the District of Delaware. Hospira cross-appealed the district court’s finding that a distribution agreement did not constitute an invalidating “offer for sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Improper Reliance on Informal “Opinion of Counsel” Part of Basis for Exceptional Case Award

February 5, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci, Chris Duerden

In Drop Stop LLC v. Jian Qing Zhu et al, 2-16-cv-07916 (CACD January 22, 2018), the Central District of California granted Plaintiff’s motion to award attorney fees due to Defendants’ exceptional litigation tactics under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Viewpoint
Speed is almost always of the essence for the victim of trade secret misappropriation. Many companies ground their business in proprietary information that, if made public, would make the exclusive product or service those companies provide a commodity good.
In an interesting order issued recently in BroadSign International, LLC v. T-Rex Property AB, Judge Swain of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Overcoming Obviousness Rejections: Arguing Changes to Fundamental Principle of Operation

January 24, 2018 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Monique Winters Macek

When trying to overcome an obviousness rejection of a patent claim, an argument that two or more cited references cannot be combined may be used.  For example, it can be argued that the combination is improper because the modification of a reference completely changes its “fundamental principle of operation.”
The Federal Circuit’s damages apportionment jurisprudence is an ever-evolving area of the law. On January 10, 2018, a three judge panel of the Federal Circuit revisited the issue in connection with a patent covering a method for providing computer security in the case Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
In its first en banc decision of 2018, the Federal Circuit held that “judicial review is available for a patent owner to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s determination that the petitioner satisfied the timeliness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) governing the filing of petitions for inter partes review.”
In a recent development from the Eastern District of Texas, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne concluded that defendants Globalfoundries, Qualcomm, and Samsung waited too long prior to moving to dismiss or transfer the case due to improper venue.
On December 19, 2017, an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled that the state of Minnesota waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to challenges to patent validity by inter partes review (IPR) by filing suit in federal court alleging infringement of the same patent being challenged by IPR. 

Lower Courts Continue to Grapple with Venue in the Wake of In re Micron and In re Cray

December 19, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Anthony Faillaci

Further to our ongoing coverage of the post-TC Heartland patent litigation landscape, a pair of recent and interesting cases from Texas and Delaware further evolved this important venue-related jurisprudence.

Federal Circuit Rules that BPCIA Preempts State Law Biosimilars Claims

December 18, 2017 | Blog | By Thomas Wintner, Joe Rutkowski

In an opinion issued on December 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) preempts the use of state law to penalize biosimilars applicants who fail to disclose information about their abbreviated Biologics License Applications (“aBLAs”) or manufacturing processes as required by 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(2)(A).
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: