IP UPDATE

When Can Same Claim Limitation Have Different Meanings? When It’s Functional, Of Course

by Sydney E. McDermott | Sep 26, 2024 | Patents

Addressing for the first time whether a functional limitation must carry the same meaning in all claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that it need not, vacating a district court decision to the contrary. Vascular Sol. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 2024-1398 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2024) (Moore, Prost, JJ.; Mazzant, Dist. J., by designation).

The seven patents asserted by Teleflex syin this case all come from a common application and are directed to a “coaxial guide catheter that is deliverable through standard guide catheters by utilizing a guidewire rail segment to permit delivery without blocking use of the guide catheter.” The asserted patents all share a common specification. However, the asserted claims differ in how they refer to the “side opening.” Some claims include the side opening as part of the “substantially rigid portion/segment” while other claims recite that the side opening is separate and distal to the “substantially rigid portion/segment.”

This case has a long procedural history involving an initial preliminary injunction motion and multiple inter partes reviews (IPRs). At the second preliminary injunction stage, Medtronic and the district court grouped the asserted limitations into two mutually exclusive groups:

Group One, which included the “substantially rigid portion/segment” claim limitation.
Group Two, which “required that the side opening not be in the substantially rigid portion” (emphasis supplied).

In denying Medtronic’s preliminary injunction motion, the district court questioned “how a skilled artisan could possibly be expected to understand the scope of a patent when the same device could simultaneously infringe two mutually exclusive claims within that patent.”

The district court then proceeded to claim construction. It rejected both parties’ initial constructions and appointed an independent expert – former US Patent & Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu – to propose a construction. Teleflex argued that Iancu should adopt a split construction (i.e., one construction for the Group One limitations and another construction for the Group Two limitations). Medtronic argued that the claims were indefinite. Iancu rejected both proposed constructions but agreed with the district court on the mutual exclusivity of the two groups. The district court determined that all claims that included the “substantially rigid portion/segment” were indefinite, and since all the asserted claims included that term, the parties stipulated to final judgment. Teleflex appealed.

Teleflex argued that the district court erred in determining that the boundary of the substantially rigid portion must be the same for all claims. Medtronic argued that the claims were indefinite.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred when it determined that the Group One and Group Two limitations were mutually exclusive and indefinite. The Federal Circuit cautioned that affirming the district court’s conclusion would mean that claims in a patent cannot vary in how they claim the disclosed subject matter and that independent claims must be entirely consistent with other independent claims, neither of which is a restriction in how patentees may claim subject matter. The Federal Circuit explained that at the claim construction stage [...]

Continue Reading

A New Vision: Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Extend to Related Claims

by Alexander P. Ott | Sep 19, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court order excluding expert validity testimony based on collateral estoppel stemming from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding of a related patent, finding that an unpatentability decision in an IPR does not collaterally estop a patentee from making validity arguments about related claims in a district court litigation. ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case Nos. 22-1755; 24-2221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2024) (Lourie, Mayer, Stark, JJ.)

This case has a long and complicated history. In 2011, ParkerVision sued Qualcomm for alleged infringement of eight patents related to wireless communications technology. In October 2013, a jury returned verdicts rejecting Qualcomm’s invalidity defense, finding 11 claims across four patents to be infringed by Qualcomm, and awarded $172 million in damages to ParkerVision.

In June 2014, the district court granted Qualcomm’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law on noninfringement, which the Federal Circuit affirmed in late 2015. Meanwhile, ParkerVision filed a second case against Qualcomm in May 2014 alleging infringement of 11 more patents. That case was stayed in favor of a Section 337 investigation that ParkerVision filed against Qualcomm at the International Trade Commission.

Qualcomm then filed 10 petitions for IPR, six of which targeted one of ParkerVision’s patents. While the challenged apparatus claims of that patent were found unpatentable during the IPR, the challenged method claims survived. The district court statutory stay (during the Commission proceeding) was lifted in December 2018. Prior to trial, the district court granted Qualcomm’s Daubert motions seeking to exclude ParkerVision’s expert’s testimony on invalidity due to collateral estoppel arising from the IPRs, and the expert’s testimony on infringement for being unreliable. The district court granted Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement based on its finding that the asserted claims were materially similar to the claims from the first case. ParkerVision appealed.

In July 2024, after the briefing was completed and the Federal Circuit held oral argument, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and returned it to the district court because Qualcomm’s invalidity counterclaims had not been adjudicated. The parties then filed a joint motion at the district court seeking entry of a final judgment, which was granted in August 2024. ParkerVision appealed again.

The Federal Circuit reinstated ParkerVision’s initial appeal and reversed the district court’s determination. On the summary judgment of noninfringement, the Court rejected the collateral estoppel finding because the district court failed to conduct claim construction to determine whether the scope of the claims was the same as in the first case. As for the district court’s exclusion of expert validity testimony due to the IPRs, the Federal Circuit concluded that because of the different legal standards for proving invalidity (preponderance versus clear and convincing), a finding underlying an unpatentability decision in an IPR does not collaterally estop a patentee from making validity arguments regarding related claims in district court litigation.

Finally, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court had abused its discretion [...]

Continue Reading

Stay Focused: New Point of View of Patent Eligibility

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Sep 19, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s decision that the asserted claims were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the district court improperly characterized the claims at an “impermissibly high level of generality.” Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., Case Nos. 22-1654; -1691 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2024) (Prost, Schall, Reyna, JJ.)

Contour owns two patents related to portable point-of-view (POV) video cameras. The patents disclose a hands-free POV action sports video camera configured for remote image acquisition control and viewing. The key embodiment describes “dual recording” where the camera generates video recordings “in two formats, high quality and low quality.” The lower quality file is streamed to a remote device for real-time adjustment of bandwidth limiting video parameters while the higher quality version of the recording is saved for later viewing.

In 2015, Contour sued GoPro, alleging that several GoPro products infringed the asserted patents. In 2021, Contour again sued GoPro, alleging that several newer products infringed the same patents. In 2021, after the district court granted partial summary judgment that GoPro’s accused products infringed the claims in the first lawsuit, GoPro filed a motion in the second lawsuit challenging the claims as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. GoPro relied heavily on the Federal Circuit’s 2021 decision in Yu v. Apple in its arguments for ineligibility. The district court initially denied the motion, but when GoPro raised the issue again at summary judgment, the district court agreed with GoPro and found the claims patent ineligible under § 101.

At step one of the Alice eligibility test the district court found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of creating and transmitting video at two different resolutions and adjusting the video’s settings remotely. At Alice step two, the district court found that the claim recited only functional, result-oriented language without indicating that physical components behaved in any way other than their basic generic tasks. Contour appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that when read as a whole, the claim was directed to a specific means that improved a relevant technology and required “specific, technological means – parallel data stream recording with the low-quality recording wirelessly transferred to a remote device – that in turn provide a technological improvement to the real time viewing capabilities of a POV camera’s recordings on a remote device.”

The Federal Circuit found that the district court’s decision was based on an “impermissibly high level of generality” that led to its incorrect conclusion that the claims were related to an abstract idea. The Court also disagreed with GoPro’s argument that Yu was dispositive in this case, explaining that in Yu, there was no dispute that the “idea and practice of using multiple pictures to enhance each other has been known by photographers for over a century.” The Court determined that Contour’s claim enabled a POV camera, with its dual recording capability, to operate differently than it otherwise [...]

Continue Reading

House Backs Senate With Its Own Proposed NO FAKES Act to Control Digital Replicas

by Sarah Bro | Sep 19, 2024 | Technology

Following the introduction of the NO FAKES Act of 2024 in July by a bipartisan group of US Senators, US Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA), María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Nathaniel Moran (R-TX), Rob Wittman (R-VA), and Joe Morelle (D-NY) introduced the identically named companion legislation, Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act, in the US House of Representatives on September 12, 2024. The language of both bills is substantially identical, with the intended purpose to create federal protection of “…intellectual property rights in the voice and visual likeness of individuals, and for other purposes.”

As described by Representative Schiff’s office in a news release announcing the bill, the House’s NO FAKES Act is intended to:

Recognize that every individual has a federal intellectual property right to their own voice and likeness, including an extension of that right post-mortem
Empower individuals to take action against parties that knowingly create, post, or profit from unauthorized digital replicas of them
Provide a safe harbor for platforms if they take down offending materials when they discover them or upon receiving proper takedown notices
Maintain protections for innovation and free speech
Provide a federal solution to a patchwork of state laws and regulations by January 2, 2025 – at least as it relates to digital replicas of individuals.

The rights established under the House’s NO FAKES Act will preempt any cause of action under state law for the protection of an individual’s voice and visual likeness rights in connection with a digital replica. We will continue to watch whether these bills are passed in identical form and signed by the incoming US president in 2025.

The Conversation Continues: Some Post-Patent-Termination Royalties Are Acceptable

by Kathleen Lynch | Sep 12, 2024 | Patents

For the second time in less than two weeks, a circuit court decided an appeal hinging on the Brulotte rule, which holds that patent royalties are impermissible when based on payments for the use of expired patents. Like the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit upheld a royalty agreement that purported to require payments after patent expiration. Ares Trading S.A. v. Dyax Corp., Case No. 23-1487 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024) (Krauser, Porter, Chung, JJ.)

Dyax is a biotechnology company engaged in “phage display” research – a laboratory process used to identify antibody fragments for use in developing medications. Dyax holds multiple patents related to phage display, including licenses to patents owned by Cambridge Antibody Technology (CAT). Dyax and Ares entered a licensing agreement. Dyax’s main obligation was to use its phage display technology to identify antibody fragments and then provide those fragments to Ares so that Ares could incorporate them into commercial medications, including one called Bavencio. In exchange, Ares agreed to pay Dyax at various research milestones and pay royalties for identified products, including Bavencio. Although Bavencio was first sold in 2017, the last CAT patent expired in 2018.

After learning of the Brulotte rule, Ares tried to renegotiate its contract obligations. When renegotiation attempts failed, Ares sued Dyax, seeking multiple related declaratory judgments revolving around its argument that its royalty obligations to Dyax were unenforceable under Brulotte. Dyax countersued on six claims, including for declaratory judgment that Brulotte did not apply. The district court found the royalty obligation enforceable and not in violation of Brulotte. Ares appealed.

Ares asked the Fourth Circuit to reconsider the applicability of the Brulotte rule and to relatedly find that Dyax had breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Fourth Circuit first examined its own jurisdiction in the context of the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals. Of the 10 total claims and counterclaims, nine arose under Massachusetts contract law. According to the Fourth Circuit, these were not “substantial” patent law claims and thus regional circuit appellate jurisdiction was appropriate.

The Fourth Circuit next turned to the Brulotte prohibition on post-termination royalties and found no violation because “Ares’ royalty obligation is not calculated based on activity requiring post-expiration use of inventions” covered by Dyax or CAT patents. The Court emphasized the policies underpinning the federal patent regime and the Brulotte rule, particularly the importance of inventions entering the public space once a patent expires to allow continued innovation and general use of the once-patented invention. The Court also explained its understanding of the nuances of Brulotte, as informed by the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Kimble v. Marvel. For instance, a court’s inquiry must focus on post-expiration use, so where “royalties are not calculated based on activity requiring post-expiration use, they do not hinder post-expiration use ‘on their face’ and Brulotte is not implicated.” In the present case, this was a key delineation because the Fourth Circuit found that Ares’ [...]

Continue Reading