Patent Litigation

In two recent decisions, both issued on February 4, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “CAFC”) erased two huge patent damages awards because the underlying expert opinion on damages was untethered to the specific facts of each case.

In its analysis of Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Avanci, L.L.C.,, the Fifth Circuit made several interesting findings: (1) that potential pass-through non-FRAND royalties are too speculative to create an injury in fact; (2) that SEP holders can fulfill their obligations to SSOs, with respect to suppliers, by actively licensing SEPs to downstream OEMs; and (3) that not all implementers are intended beneficiaries entitled to FRAND licenses.

Inter partes reviews have a very high institution rate. And worse, once instituted IPRs result in invalidated claims at an inordinately high rate. The best defense against an IPR petition is to convince the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny institution. In this post, the Mintz IPR team put together out top six tips for avoiding IPR institution.

On January 26, 2022, in what appears to be a case of first impression, U.S. District Court Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a biosimilar applicant defendant’s motion to dismiss patent infringement claims brought in the second phase of the parties’ Biosimilar Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) litigation. In so doing, Judge Lee held that the reference product sponsor (“RPS”) plaintiff is not limited to only declaratory judgment actions in the second phase of litigation under the BPCIA.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued a decision holding that parties can contractually bargain away their rights to file petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“the Board”). This precedential case is the first to hold that a forum selection clause can forfeit the right to challenge a patent’s validity by IPR. The takeaway from this case is that when entering into any type of patent related agreement, be careful to ensure that your right to file IPR petitions is not stripped away, particularly by way of a forum selection clause which is “prima facie valid and should be enforced” in the words of the Federal Circuit.

On February 8, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the plaintiff’s motion to exclude defendant’s expert testimony for being “based on an erroneous legal theory” in a suit alleging defendants’ proposed generic Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) product would infringe Exela’s patents under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Judge Noreika’s decision in this case reinforces the Federal Circuit’s holding in Sunovion and serves as a reminder that ANDA product infringement is primarily assessed by comparing the asserted claims with the ANDA specification, rather than other ANDA submission materials further describing the ANDA product.

The Federal Circuit decision in Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple, Inc., where a 2-1 panel ruled that the district court had abused its discretion by refusing to seal certain patent-licensing documents provided by plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., demonstrates the Federal Circuit’s recognition of the importance of keeping certain patent licensing and other trade secret materials confidential.

We previously discussed which portions of an artificial intelligence/machine-learning (“AI/ML”) platform can be patented.  Under what circumstances, however, is it best to keep at least a portion of the platform a trade secret? And what are some best practices for protecting trade secrets? In this post, we explore important considerations and essential business practices to keep in mind when working to protect the value of trade secrets specific to AI/ML platforms, as well as the pros and cons of trade secret versus patent protection.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

On September 28, 2021, in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Nos. 2020-1685, -1704, clarified its decision from a prior appeal in the same case to hold that a finding of willful infringement requires only deliberate or intentional infringement, not egregious, wanton, malicious, or bad-faith infringement conduct.

In an interesting recent case of first impression, Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas denied a motion for judgement on the pleadings filed by Defendants Google and YouTube because the asserted patent was terminally disclaimed to two other patents that had been invalidated prior to its issuance. In VideoShare, LLC v. Google, LLC, 6:19-cv-663 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2021) (Albright, J.), the Court rejected the argument that the invalidation of the terminal patents was the “expiration” of the terminal patents, and that the asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,362,341 (“the ’341 patent”) was therefore also necessarily expired because it allegedly shares the expiration date of the terminal patents. Judge Albright concluded that, to the contrary, the prior finding of invalidity of the terminal patents had no impact on the expiry of the terminally-disclaimed ’341 patent.