IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Patents
Subscribe to Patents's Posts

Full of Hot Air? PTAB Joinder Decisions Under § 315(c) Are Appealable

by | Sep 16, 2020 |

Addressing whether it has jurisdiction to review joinder decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reissued a prior decision explaining that a joinder decision is reviewable because the decision occurs after the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding institutes. Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case Nos. 18-1400, -1401, -1402, -1403, -1537, -1540, -1541 (Fed. Cir. Opinion Issued: Mar. 18, 2020, Opinion Reissued: Sept. 4, 2020) (Prost, C.J.) (Prost, C.J., concurring with additional views).

Windy City Innovations filed a complaint accusing Facebook of infringing four patents that collectively have 830 claims. Facebook filed a motion requesting that Windy City be forced to limit the number of asserted claims to 40 by the time of Facebook’s one-year IPR filing deadline, but the district court denied the motion. One year after it was served with the complaint, Facebook filed petitions for IPR on a subset of the 830 claims.

Five months after Facebook filed its petitions, Windy City narrowed its case to a subset of claims, including claims that were not subject to Facebook’s IPR petitions. After the PTAB instituted review based on Facebook’s petitions, Facebook immediately filed two new IPR petitions. Because the one-year time bar had passed, Facebook also filed a motion under § 315(c) to join the new IPR petitions to its now-instituted proceedings. The PTAB granted Facebook’s motion for joinder and ultimately issued a final written decision with a mixed result, cancelling some claims and finding others not unpatentable. Both parties appealed

The Federal Circuit found that the PTAB erred in allowing Facebook to use § 315(c) to join itself to its earlier-filed petitions. The Court explained that the statutory language was unambiguous, finding that the ordinary usage of “joining a person as a party to a proceeding” means that the joined party must necessarily be someone who is not already a party. The Court further explained that allowing same-party joinder would impermissibly allow the Director to join new issues to an existing proceeding. The Court found that § 315(c) only authorizes the Director to join (1) a person (2) as a party (3) to an already instituted IPR. The language does not authorize the joined party to bring new issues into the already instituted IPR proceeding. The Court found this understanding consistent with other subsections of § 315, where there is a clear distinction between § 315(c), which refers to the joinder of a person as a party, and § 315(d), which refers to the consolidation of multiple proceedings and the issues in each. The Court was sympathetic to Facebook’s policy concerns regarding patents with a large number of claims that may not be narrowed to a manageable number of asserted claims before the one-year time-bar. Nevertheless, it found that policy considerations could not overcome the unambiguous language of the statute. The Court therefore vacated the PTAB’s final written decisions as to the later-filed petitions.

After the Court issued its original opinion, Facebook filed a petition for panel rehearing, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Logic to Modify: Even Deceptive Intent Does Not Bar Inventorship Correction

by | Sep 16, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court invalidity determination finding that judicial estoppel prevented a patent owner from relisting an inventor previously removed for strategic litigation purposes. Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Case Nos. 19-2015, -2387 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2020) (Prost, C.J.).

Egenera sued Cisco for infringement of a patent directed to a reconfigurable virtual network that included a “logic to modify” and transmit received messages. In response Cisco petitioned for inter partes review (IPR). During the IPR’s pendency, Egenera realized that all claim limitations were conceived of before inventor Schulter began working at the company, and petitioned the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to remove Schulter as a listed inventor. The Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute Cisco’s IPR, and the PTO granted Egenera’s petition to remove Schulter shortly thereafter.

During the litigation, the district court construed the patent claims’ “logic” terms as means-plus-function elements and concluded that the “logic to modify” limitation corresponded to a “tripartite structure” described in the specification. Cisco then asserted invalidity under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) § 102(f), contending that Schulter invented the tripartite structure, and that the patent therefore did not list all inventors. Egenera attempted to re-correct inventorship to include Schulter, but the court rejected the attempt. The district court found the patent invalid under § 102(f), reasoning that judicial estoppel precluded Egenera from “resurrecting” Schulter’s inventorship. Egenera appealed both the means-plus-function construction and the judicial estoppel finding.

The Federal Circuit first addressed whether Egenera could correct inventorship absent any judicial estoppel. The Court looked to the plain meaning of post-AIA § 256, which provides that “the error of omitting inventors . . . shall not invalidate the patent . . . if it can be corrected.” Notably, post-AIA § 256 removed the requirement that an inventorship error occur “without . . . deceptive intent.” The Federal Circuit stated it plainly: “‘Error’ is simply the incorrect listing of inventors” and does not exclude even deceptive intention. The Court explained that the inequitable conduct rules provide a safety valve for such actions, not § 256. The Court also noted that at the time Egenera removed Schulter as an inventor, no one had argued that “logic to modify” was means-plus-function language, which it presumptively was not. Egenera’s preferred construction of that term was consistent with its assertion that Schulter was not an inventor. The omission of Schulter as inventor was thus an “error” within the scope of § 256.

The Federal Circuit next turned to whether Egenera was judicially estopped from relisting Schulter as an inventor. Applying the First Circuit’s New Hampshire factors, the Federal Circuit looked to whether Egenera’s positions were inconsistent, whether its first position was successfully accepted by the court, and whether Egenera would derive an unfair advantage if not estopped. The Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in finding Egenera’s changing inventorship positions inconsistent. The Court explained that inventorship is complex and can depend on claim [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Structural Limitations Are Not Met by Imaginary Demarcation Lines

by | Sep 9, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s claim construction of the term “end plate” that required a flat external surface, and its construction of the term “protrusion extending outwardly from the end plate” that required a demarcation between the protrusion and end plate. The Federal Circuit therefore prohibited an infringement theory premised on an end plate being inside the accused product and a protrusion that was not demarcated from the end plate. Neville v. Foundation Constructors, Inc., Case No. 20-1132 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2020) (Chen, J.).

Neville owns patents directed to foundation piles, which are tubular structures placed into the ground to provide stability for the foundations built over them. One set of claims requires an “end plate having a substantially flat surface disposed perpendicular to the centerline of the tubular pile.” Another set of claims requires “at least one protrusion extending outwardly from the end plate.”

Neville filed a lawsuit alleging that Foundation Constructors’ pile tips infringed the patents. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, reasoning that the plain meaning of “end plate having a substantially flat surface” did not encompass “an interior surface facing into the rest of the pile tip.” Examining the intrinsic record, the district court concluded that “the patent applicant intended the ‘substantially flat surface’ of the end plate to refer to the side of the end plate facing outward.” The court found that the accused products did not have such an “end plate.” As to claims requiring a protrusion extending outwardly from the end plate, the court reasoned that “[b]ecause the end piece of the accused pile tip is a single, conically-shaped piece, there is not a demarcation of where an ‘end plate’ should end and the ‘protrusion’ should begin,” and non-infringement was therefore appropriate. Neville appealed.

Neville argued that the district court’s ruling of non-infringement was based on an incorrect claim construction and should therefore be overturned. The Federal Circuit rejected Neville’s arguments and affirmed summary judgment.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the phrase “substantially flat surface disposed perpendicular to the centerline of the tubular pile” did not refer to any interior-facing surface. Starting with the language of the claim, the Court found that the word “end” suggested that the relevant surface of the end plate is the external one at the second end of the pile tip. The Court found that the specification reinforced the view that the invention was directed to the exterior surface of the end plate as being “substantially flat,” and through this end plate the pile tip applies force to the underlying soil. Neville argued that the specification implicitly taught that an end plate having a substantially flat surface perpendicular to the tubular pile could be fully interior to another portion of the pile tip because the specification disclosed that the pile tip, including the end plate, “could be cast as a single unit.” The Court rejected Neville’s argument, finding that under Neville’s logic, the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction over Constitutional Questions in AIA Appeals

by | Sep 2, 2020 | ,

Addressing for the first time whether a district court has jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) final written decisions in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over AIA appeals, including constitutional questions. Security People, Inc. v. Iancu, Case No. 2019-2118 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2020) (Hughes, J.).

Security People’s patent was challenged in an IPR, and the Board issued a final written decision invalidating all challenged claims. Security People appealed the Board’s decision to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed. The Supreme Court then denied Security People’s petition for certiorari. After the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Security People filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California, challenging the Board’s final written decision as unconstitutional. The district court dismissed Security People’s claim because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, citing the America Invents Act’s (AIA) provision giving the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over appeals from Board decisions in IPRs. Security People appealed.

Security People argued that because the Board lacks authority to consider constitutional claims, only a district court can hear factual issues underlying a constitutional challenge. Security People also argued that its constitutional challenge was not ripe until the Federal Circuit finally resolved the Board’s decision, and that it had to exhaust its claims on the merits before raising its constitutional claims.

The Federal Circuit disagreed. The Court found that in the rare instances where fact finding would be necessary for resolving a constitutional challenge, the Federal Circuit had authority to decide those factual issues through judicial notice. The Court explained that “finality” of the agency’s decision did not require the merits appeals to fully conclude before addressing constitutional issues, because the Board’s decision-making is complete when it issues a final written decision. In short, Security People was required to bring its constitutional challenge at the same time it challenged merits of the Board’s decision. The Court found its reasoning supported by the text, structure and history of the AIA, which gave the Federal Circuit wide authority to review Board decisions without any exception for constitutional challenges. The Court also reasoned that the Administrative Procedures Act’s (APA) general authorization to review agency action in the district courts does not override the specific framework in the AIA providing judicial review to the Federal Circuit. Indeed, there is no need to look to the APA’s general authorization in this regard, because the Federal Circuit is an adequate forum to resolve any issues challenged with respect to the Board’s final written decisions.



read more

Res Judicata on Procedural Grounds Precludes Similar Claims Arising After Prior Judgment

by | Sep 2, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision that res judicata can apply to dismissals on procedural grounds and to claims arising after a prior judgment. Sowinski v. California Air Resources Board, Case No. 19-1558 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2020) (Newman, J.)

Richard Sowinski is the inventor of a patent directed to an “electronic method and apparatus for validating and trading consumer pollution-control tax credits.” In a first set of lawsuits starting in 2015, Sowinski sued the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in state court, alleging infringement by CARB’s Cap-and-Trade Program. CARB removed the case to district court and filed several motions to dismiss. The district court dismissed the complaint after Sowinski failed to respond to these motions before the deadline. The dismissal was upheld on appeal.

As part of a second round of lawsuits starting in 2018, Sowinski filed a complaint in federal court that was “substantially identical” to the 2015 case, except the 2018 complaint sought infringement damages arising after the 2015 case decision. CARB moved to dismiss, arguing that the claim was barred based on the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents a civil claim from being tried if it arises out of the “same transaction or common nucleus of operative facts” of a prior case where the merits were adjudicated. The district court agreed and granted CARB’s motion to dismiss. Sowinski appealed.

Sowinski argued that res judicata did not apply to his case because the prior suit was resolved on procedural grounds, not the merits of infringement, and because the current complaint sought infringement damages occurring after the conclusion of his last lawsuit. For res judicata on what Sowinski called a “technicality,” the Federal Circuit applied Ninth Circuit procedural law. Under Ninth Circuit law, preclusion applies when a prior suit involved the same claim as the later suit, reached a final judgment on the merits and involved identical parties. The Court also noted that for preclusion purposes, dismissal for failure to prosecute is an adjudication on the merits. Applying these factors, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, explaining that res judicata generally applies when “a patentee seeks to assert the same patent against the same party and the same subject matter.”

The Federal Circuit found that preclusion can also apply to claims arising after the prior judgment, explaining that one cannot challenge the repetition of an act in a subsequent suit if the act was judged not wrongful. The Court explained that preclusion applies when the accused products or methods are essentially the same. Here, CARB activity was held not to be infringing in the 2015 case because of Sowinski’s failure to respond, and Sowinski’s 2018 complaint described CARB’s ongoing activities as the same as those in the 2015 case. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s decision, explaining that Sowinski alleged no different conduct or acts against the same defendant.



read more

Standard Essentiality Is a Question for the Fact Finder

by | Aug 20, 2020 |

Affirming a jury verdict of infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the question of whether patent claims are essential to all implementations of an industry standard should be resolved by the trier of fact. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Comm. Tech. Holdings Ltd., Case No. 19-2215 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2020) (O’Malley, J.).

IP Bridge owns patents that it contends are essential to the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) standard, and accused TCL of infringing the patents based on the sale of LTE-compliant mobile phones and tablets. Relying on the Federal Circuit’s 2010 decision in Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., IP Bridge presented evidence at trial that (1) the asserted claims are essential to mandatory sections of the LTE standard and (2) the accused products comply with the LTE standard. TCL did not present any evidence to counter that showing. The jury found that TCL was liable for infringement of the asserted claims and awarded damages. Following the verdict, TCL filed a motion for judgment as matter of law, contending that IP Bridge could not rely on the methodology approved in Fujitsu because Fujitsu only approved that methodology in circumstances where the patent owner asks the district court to assess essentiality in the context of construing the claims of the asserted patents. The district court rejected TCL’s argument and concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. TCL appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings but explained that it was writing to refute TCL’s contention that whether a patent is essential to a standard is a question of law to be resolved in the context of claim construction. TCL argued that while standard compliance may be used to prove infringement, a district court must make a threshold determination as part of claim construction that all implementations of a standard infringe the claims. TCL argued that since IP Bridge never asked the district court to conduct such an analysis, the question should not have gone to the jury. IP Bridge responded by arguing that whether a patent is essential to a standard is a classic fact issue and is in the province of the factfinder.

The Federal Circuit agreed with IP Bridge and found that TCL’s appeal rested on a misreading of Fujitsu. In Fujitsu, the Court noted that if a district court finds that the claims cover any device that practices a standard, then comparing the claims to that standard is the same as the traditional infringement analysis of comparing the claims to the accused product. The Court explained that the passing reference to claim construction is a recognition that the first step in any infringement analysis is claim construction; it is not a statement that the district court must determine whether the claim covers every implementation of the standard. The Court also explained that determining standard essentiality of patent claims during claim construction does not make sense from a practical perspective because essentiality is a question about whether the claim elements [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Senator Tillis Urges USPTO to Adopt Patent Reform Proposals

by | Aug 18, 2020 |

On August 10, 2020, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina urged the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Andrei Iancu, to adopt two patent reform proposals suggested by Lisa Larrimore Ouellete and Heidi Williams. Senator Tillis is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Stanford University professors Lisa Larrimore Ouellete and Heidi Williams proposed the reforms in a paper, Reforming the Patent System, The Hamilton Project, Policy Proposal 2020-12 (June 2020).

The first proposed reform would require patent applicants to more clearly distinguish between hypothetical experimental results and actual experimental results. The USPTO allows applicants to include so-called “prophetic examples” in a patent application. The patent applicant is supposed to distinguish between prophetic examples and actual working examples by the verb tense used to describe the example. Prophetic examples should be described in the present or future tense, while working examples should be described in the past tense. However, the verb tense is not always clear. Moreover, the verb tense distinction may not be appreciated by foreign language translators, scientists and engineers, especially in countries where prophetic examples are not allowed. Ouellette and Williams proposed that prophetic examples in patent applications be clearly labeled. This would reduce confusion by the public. Senator Tillis noted that confusing data in patent applications could be used to mislead the public and pump up profits for a company that has little to offer the economy or the public.

The second proposed reform would require patent owners to disclose ownership of patents in a more transparent and standardized manner. The lack of a transparent and standardized recording of patent assignments increases the costs and uncertainties of freedom-to-operate searches, licensing, negotiations and patent litigation. There is currently no requirement by the USPTO that the assignment records be updated when there is an ownership change of a patent. There is no requirement that hidden owners of patents be listed in an assignment record. Moreover, a single patent owner can be referred to by different names in different patents. Ouellette and Williams proposed: 1) Congress or the USPTO should require standardization of entity and inventor names across patent records, 2) Congress or the USPTO should increase incentives to record changes in patent assignments, and 3) at least for patents involved in litigation, parties having ownership interests in the patents should be identified.

Ouellette and Williams also proposed adjusting patent terms for pharmaceuticals so that pharmaceuticals that have to undergo a lengthy clinical trial would still have a sufficient patent term once they are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, patent term changes require a change to the patent statute, and therefore this proposal needs to be approved by Congress.

Senator Tillis explained that the two proposed reforms would enhance “the patent system so that it provides optimal incentives for innovators and inventors while also minimizing transactional costs that may discourage the development of new products.” Senator Tillis noted the two proposed reforms could be implemented by the USPTO [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Challenge to PTAB’s Finding of Non-Obviousness Fails to Pay Out

by | Aug 13, 2020 | ,

Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in finding that a dependent claim was valid despite the patent owner’s lack of validity arguments beyond those advanced for the corresponding and invalid independent claim, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s ruling and found no APA violation. FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC, Case No. 19-1393 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2020) (Hughes, J.) (Dyk, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Interactive Games owns a patent directed to a method for allowing users to gamble remotely via a mobile device, according to certain game configurations. Specifically, the independent claim is directed to altering a user’s game outcome based on the gaming configuration associated with the location of a user’s mobile gaming device. A dependent claim adds the additional limitation of “accessing a lookup table which contains an ordered list of locations and associated game configurations.”

FanDuel petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the patent as obvious based on three references. The first reference (Carter) disclosed a mobile wagering system capable of determining a gambler’s location and restricting access based on the location. Carter’s system used a database that correlated various locations with applicable access levels. Importantly, the reference generally indicated that the system may employ various components such as “memory elements, processing elements, logic elements, look-up tables, and the like.” The second reference (Walker) disclosed enabling or disabling certain features on a mobile gaming device based on a user’s location. And the third reference (the webpage) included a list of slot payouts by casino, city and state, alphabetically organized by state. FanDuel also submitted an expert declaration that the use of look-up tables was well known in the art and that it would have been an obvious design choice to store Carter’s jurisdictional information in an “ordered list” similar to the webpage.

In its Preliminary Patent Owner Response, Interactive incorporated its validity arguments for the independent claim into its arguments for the dependent claim, but did not otherwise advance any substantive arguments specific to the dependent claim. The PTAB instituted IPR for all challenged claims. Following institution, Interactive submitted a patent owner response, which again did not advance any substantive arguments specific to the dependent claim. While Interactive did submit an expert declaration, the statements made by FanDuel’s expert specific to the dependent claim were uncontested. Ultimately, the PTAB found the independent claim invalid, but found the dependent claim valid. FanDuel appealed.

FanDuel argued that the PTAB’s decision with respect to the dependent claim violated the APA because the PTAB changed its obviousness theory midstream. FanDuel alleged that no further record development was presented regarding the dependent claim after institution, and therefore a finding of validity in light of the PTAB’s decision to institute amounted to a changed position by the PTAB, to which FanDuel was entitled notice and an opportunity to respond.

The Federal Circuit disagreed and affirmed the PTAB’s decision. In finding [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Explain Yourself: “Untethered” Obviousness Determination Reversed

by | Aug 13, 2020 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated in part and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determination of unpatentability because the Board did not adequately support its reasoning as to certain claims. Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp., Case No. 19-1467 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020) (Stoll, J.).

Intel petitioned for inter parties review (IPR) of a patent owned by Alacritech that is directed to performing network processes on a dedicated network card (INIC) instead of on a computer’s central processing unit (CPU). Intel asserted that the claims would have been obvious over prior art Thia in view of Tanenbaum. The Board agreed, finding claims of the patent were obvious. Alacritech appealed.

Addressing the standard of review as set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Circuit explained that the Board is obligated to provide a record which shows the evidence on which its findings are based, as well as its reasoning in reaching its conclusions. While “perfect explanations” are not required, it must be sufficient for the Court to see that the agency has “done its job.” The Court found that the Board’s analysis as to three claims in the patent did not meet this standard.

The Court explained that the Board, after only briefly reciting the parties’ arguments, “merely concluded” that the relevant claim limitation was present in the subject claims and the prior art, and in so doing “misapprehend[ed] both the scope of the claims and the parties’ arguments.” The Court went on to explain that the crux of the dispute was where the claim limitation at issue took place—in the CPU (as in the prior art), or in the INIC (as required by the claims). The Court found that the Board’s analysis did not acknowledge this aspect of the parties’ dispute or explain how the prior art taught such a limitation. Without an explanation of its reasoning, the Court could not reasonably discern whether the Board followed the proper path in making its determination.

Intel argued that, while the Board did not itself expound on its reasoning, it did sufficiently support its position by citation to and adoption of Intel’s arguments. While the Federal Circuit noted that it has upheld Board determinations that flowed from the rejection or adoption of a party’s arguments, in this case the Board’s decision was “untethered from either party’s position.” Specifically, both parties focused their arguments on the Thia reference, while the Board relied on Tanenbaum to support its findings. Thus the Court was unable to infer the Board’s argument from those founded on a different basis.

The Federal Circuit also rejected as “fundamentally incorrect” Intel’s assertion that any evidentiary support in the record—even if not cited to by the Board—is sufficient to support the Board’s determination. The Court retorted that Intel’s sole citation to a footnote in a 2002 case was at odds with the clear precedent confining the Court’s review to the actual grounds on which the Board relied. Accordingly, the Court vacated the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Check Step One: It’s Not Ova until the Court Compares Claims

by | Aug 13, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision finding a patent directed to a method of sorting particles using flow cytometry technology ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit also vacated the district court’s conclusion that the patent owner was precluded from asserting certain patents based on claim preclusion. XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, Case No. 19-1789 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020) (Stoll, J.).

XY, Beckman Coulter and Inguran (collectively, XY) sued Trans Ova in 2016 for infringement of seven patents relating to technology for sex selection of non-human mammals. Trans Ova filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the asserted claims of one of the patents are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applying the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework for determining patent eligibility, the district court determined that the claims are ineligible under § 101. At Alice step one, the district court found that the patent’s sole independent claim was directed to the abstract idea of a “mathematical equation that permits rotating multi-dimensional data.” At Alice step two, the district court found that the asserted claims lacked an inventive concept because XY admitted that each claim element was known in the art.

Trans Ova also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the district court should hold XY’s infringement allegations barred by claim preclusion. The argument was based on XY’s 2012 lawsuit against Trans Ova on infringement of different patents directed to similar technology (which was pending on appeal when the 2016 case was filed). The district court granted Trans Ova’s motion to dismiss infringement allegations of three patents cited in the 2016 suit, and stayed proceedings on XY’s remaining causes of action pending the outcome of the 2016 suit’s appeal. XY appealed the district court’s dismissal decision.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in finding that the claims are directed to a mathematical equation under Alice step one. The Court concluded that the asserted claims are directed to a patent-eligible improvement of a method of sorting particles using flow cytometry technology, not to an abstract idea. XY’s claim described detailed improvements to a physical technique, a step-by-step method for a laboratory process, which is patent eligible.

As to the issue of claim preclusion, the parties’ only dispute was whether the district court properly concluded that XY’s 2012 and 2016 lawsuits present the same cause of action. A cause of action is defined based on the transactional facts from which it arises, which in a patent case include both the asserted patents and the accused activity. Claim preclusion will be triggered by different patents only if the scope of the asserted patent claims in the two suits is essentially the same.

XY argued that the district court erred by failing to compare the currently asserted patent claims to the previously asserted patent claims to determine whether the causes of action in the two lawsuits are essentially the same. The Federal Circuit [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES