You searched for Patent filing - Page 12 of 31

Results for "Patent filing"

Bargained-Away Rights to File for IPR May Not Be Recovered

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 17, 2022 | Patents

In a precedential opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a plaintiff’s requested injunction seeking to force a patent challenger to abandon its petitions for inter partes review (IPR). Nippon Shinyaku Co. Ltd. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 2021-2369 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2022) (Newman, Lourie, Stoll, JJ.)

Nippon Shinyaku and Sarepta Therapeutics executed a mutual confidentiality agreement (MCA) to facilitate discussion of “a potential business relationship relating to therapies for the treatment of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.” The MCA established a mutual covenant not to sue for “any legal or equitable cause of action, suit or claim or otherwise initiate any litigation or other form of legal or administrative proceeding against the other Party . . . in any jurisdiction in the United States or Japan of or concerning intellectual property in the field of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy” during a covenant term. The mutual covenant explicitly “include[d], but [wa]s not limited to, patent infringement litigations, declaratory judgment actions, patent validity challenges before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or Japanese Patent Office, and reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office” (emphasis added). The MCA also included a forum selection clause to govern post-term intellectual property disputes between the parties, which stipulated:

that all Potential Actions arising under U.S. law relating to patent infringement or invalidity, and filed within two (2) years of the end of the Covenant Term, shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and that neither Party will contest personal jurisdiction or venue in the District of Delaware and that neither Party will seek to transfer the Potential Actions on the ground of forum non conveniens (emphasis added).

“Potential actions” were defined as:

any patent or other intellectual property disputes between [Nippon Shinyaku] and Sarepta, or their Affiliates, other than the EP Oppositions or JP Actions, filed with a court or administrative agency prior to or after the Effective Date in the United States, Europe, Japan or other countries in connection with the Parties’ development and commercialization of therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (emphasis added).

The day the covenant term ended, Sarepta filed seven petitions for IPR at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board). Nippon Shinyaku filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Delaware for breach of contract, declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity and patent infringement. Nippon Shinyaku motioned for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Sarepta from proceeding with the IPR petitions and to force Sarepta to withdraw them. The district court denied Nippon Shinyaku under each of the preliminary injunction factors (likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the absence of extraordinary preliminary relief, balance of harms in its favor and relief being in the public interest).

The district court explained that any irreparable harm arguments fell within Nippon Shinyaku’s contract interpretation arguments, and that Nippon Shinyaku’s balance of hardships and public interest arguments relied on Sarepta’s ability to file [...]

Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Tosses Shaw: IPR Estoppel Applies to All Grounds That Reasonably Could Have Been Raised

by Paul Devinsky | Feb 17, 2022 | Patents

March 2022 Update: The Federal Circuit has issued an errata to this decision. Read about it here.

Addressing inter partes review (IPR) estoppel after the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2018 decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled its decision in Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel Systems, stating that the only plausible reading of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estops a party from raising all claims and grounds that reasonably could have been included in the party’s petition for IPR. The Court also rejected the district court’s two-tier damages model as contrary to customary patent damages calculations. California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited, Case Nos. 20-2222; 21-1527 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2022) (Lourie, Linn, Dyk, JJ.) (Dyk, J., dissenting in part).

Background

California Institute of Technology (Caltech) filed suit against Broadcom and Apple, alleging patent infringement directed to the generation and repetition of information in a wireless data transmission system. Wireless transmission systems generally use data repetition so that the transmitted information may be decoded even when data loss occurs. The patented circuitry discloses a form of irregular data repetition in which portions of the information bits may be repeated a varying number of times.

Apple filed multiple IPR petitions challenging the validity of the claims at issue. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) concluded in all cases that Apple failed to show that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious. At the district court, Apple and Broadcom raised new arguments of obviousness not asserted in the IPR proceedings. The district court granted Caltech’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity, precluding Apple and Broadcom from raising arguments at trial that they reasonably could have raised in their IPR petitions.

At trial, the district court instructed the jury that “repeat” means “generation of additional bits, where generation can include, for example, duplication or reuse of bits.” Apple and Broadcom argued that the Broadcom chips (which were integrated into Apple devices) did not infringe the asserted claims because they did not repeat information at all. With respect to one of the asserted patents, the district court did not provide a jury instruction relating to its construction that the claim language “information bits appear in a variable number of subsets” requires irregular information bit repetition. The jury found infringement of all asserted claims. Apple and Broadcom filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and a new trial, both of which the district court denied.

The district court adopted Caltech’s proposed two-tier damages theory, explaining that Broadcom and Apple’s products were different and therefore possessed different values simply because they were “different companies at different levels in the supply chain.” The district court ultimately entered judgment against Broadcom for $288 million and against Apple for $885 million. Broadcom and Apple appealed.

The Appeal

Broadcom and Apple argued that the district court’s construction of “repeat” was inconsistent with the claim language and specification. The Federal Circuit [...]

Continue Reading

Power Play: District Court Properly Transferred Bad Faith Anticipatory Suit

by Tessa Kroll | Jan 27, 2022 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for mandamus relief from an order transferring a first-filed declaratory judgment action from the District of New Jersey to the Western District of Texas, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing from the first-to-file rule. In re Amperex Tech. Ltd., Case No. 22-105 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2022) (Lourie, Prost, Taranto, JJ.) (per curiam).

Maxell, Ltd. owns patents related to lithium-ion battery technology. To facilitate licensing discussions regarding Maxell’s patents, Maxell and Amperex entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) stipulating that neither party would sue the other for one year. At the end of the one-year period, Amperex proposed extending the NDA because the parties had not reached an agreement. Maxell replied that Amperex’s products infringed Maxell’s patents and cautioned that if “Maxell and Amperex are not able to enter into a licensing agreement by Friday, April 9, 2020, Maxell will be left with no choice but to pursue litigation.”

After some discussion, Maxell’s counsel expressed interest in having another meeting and requested Amperex’s presentation materials in advance. Amperex’s counsel replied, “I will be in touch as soon as I can get the materials,” just two hours before filing a 90-page complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Two days later, Maxell filed an infringement action in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas. Maxell moved the New Jersey court to decline jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action or transfer the action to the Western District of Texas. Amperex subsequently moved to enjoin Maxell’s action, and Maxell filed a motion to dismiss or transfer Amperex’s complaint, arguing that the action was brought in bad faith and in anticipation of Maxell’s actions.

Departing from the first-to-file rule, the district court granted Maxell’s transfer request. The district court acknowledged that a “first-filed action is preferred . . . unless considerations of judicial and litigant economy, and the just and effective disposition of disputes, require otherwise.” The district court then addressed several factors, including whether Amperex’s suit was anticipatory and the relative convenience of the forums. The district court concluded that Amperex’s suit was anticipatory because “when one party gives a deadline by which a dispute must be resolved non-judicially and the other party quickly files a declaratory action, the declaratory action is anticipatory.” Moreover, while neither bad faith nor ongoing negotiations are required for a suit to be anticipatory, bad faith actions that “disrupt the non-judicial settlement of disputes or . . . string the defendant along so that the plaintiff can win the race to the courthouse . . . weigh strongly in favor of transfer or dismissal.” Thus, the district court found that Maxell’s clear ultimatum coupled with Amperex’s “feigned cooperation” weighed heavily in Maxell’s favor.

The district court next noted that neither district was more convenient for the parties or witnesses, whereas Amperex’s failure to properly serve Maxell [...]

Continue Reading

PTO Outlines New Process to Impose Sanctions for Improper Trademark Practices

by Eleanor B. Atkins | Jan 13, 2022 | Trademarks

As part of its initiative to “protect the integrity of the U.S. trademark register,” the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued a Federal Register notice outlining a new administrative process to address fraudulent or improper trademark submissions.

Under this new process, the commissioner for trademarks can investigate and sanction actions that appear to violate the Trademark Rules of Practice or the PTO website terms of use. The commissioner may initiate an investigation based on information received from examining attorneys or data analytics personnel or via external sources such as letters of protest, the tmscams@uspto.gov mailbox, law enforcement and media reports.

Applications will be removed from examination pending an investigation, and a suspension letter will be issued. All documents associated with this process will be posted in the electronic record, which is available to the public via the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database.

If the investigation does not result in an administrative order, the application will be removed from suspension and assigned (or reassigned) to the examining attorney for consideration. If, however, the PTO identifies conduct that suggests a potential violation of the PTO rules or the PTO website terms of use, it will issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on the relevant parties (e.g., applicants, registrants or any involved third parties). The order will set a response deadline and identify the violation, the relevant application(s) and/or registration(s) and the proposed sanction. Appropriate sanctions may include, for example, terminating the relevant application(s), striking a submission, prohibiting a party from appearing before the PTO in trademark matters or deactivating certain USPTO.gov accounts.

If the PTO issues a sanction order terminating a pending application, the TSDR records will reflect that order in the application prosecution history. Where the order includes the sanction of termination involving a registration that issued before the administrative process was initiated, the PTO will not terminate the registration, but the online TSDR records will be updated to note that the registration was subject to sanctions and such entries may affect the validity of that registration.

The notice also states that “additional actions” may be taken if a sanctioned actor repeatedly violates the PTO rules or the PTO website terms of use.

Comments on the notice are due by January 20, 2022.

Practice Note: This is just one of the many ways the PTO is trying to address fraudulent filings. The PTO recently issued sanctions where it found evidence of fraudulent applications and violations of the PTO Rules of Professional Conduct.

PTO Proposes Deferred Responses for Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections

by Amol Parikh | Jan 13, 2022 | Patents

In a January 6, 2022, Federal Register notice, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) announced its intention to implement a pilot program to evaluate the effects of permitting applicants to defer responding to subject matter eligibility (SME) rejections in certain patent applications. Under this pilot program, applicants may receive invitations to participate if their applications meet the program’s criteria, including a criterion that the claims in the application necessitate rejections on SME and other patentability-related grounds. An applicant who accepts the invitation to participate in this pilot program must still file a reply addressing all the rejections except SME rejections in every office action mailed in the application but is permitted to defer responding to SME rejections until the earlier of final disposition of the application or the withdrawal or obviation of all other outstanding rejections.

Invitations to participate in the Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response pilot program will be mailed during the period between February 1, 2022, and July 30, 2022. The PTO may extend, modify or terminate the pilot program depending on the workload and resources necessary to administer the program, feedback from the public and the program’s effectiveness.

Because satisfaction of non-SME conditions for patentability (e.g., novelty, nonobviousness, adequacy of disclosure and definiteness) may resolve SME issues as well, the pilot program may result in improved examination efficiency and increased patent quality.

An examiner may invite a prospective applicant to participate in the pilot program by including a form paragraph in the first office action on the merits. An applicant receiving an invitation to participate in the pilot program may elect to accept or decline the invitation. If an applicant wishes to participate in the program, they must file a properly completed request form PTO/SB/456 concurrently with a timely response to the first office action on the merits. The request form must be submitted via the PTO’s patent electronic filing systems.

The limited waiver permits the applicant to defer addressing the SME rejections until the earlier of final disposition of the participating application or the withdrawal or obviation of all other outstanding rejections. A final disposition is the earliest of the following:

Mailing of a notice of allowance

Mailing of a final office action

Filing of a notice of appeal

Filing of a request for continued examination

Abandonment of the application.

Applicants must address the SME rejections in a response to a final rejection or the filing of a request for continued examination.

The public is invited to submit comments, which must be received by March 7, 2022, to ensure consideration.

Exclusive Licensee Has Constitutional but Not Statutory Standing

by Paul Devinsky | Dec 9, 2021 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal of an exclusive licensee’s complaint for lack of statutory and constitutional standing, despite affirming that the licensee had no statutory standing where the district court erroneously found no constitutional standing. Univ. of So. Florida Res. Found., Inc. v. Fujifilm Med. Sys. U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 20-1872 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 23, 2021) (sealed opinion issued Oct. 22, 2021) (Stoll, J.)

In April 1997, the University of South Florida (USF) received an invention disclosure related to a workstation-user interface for digital mammography. In September 1997, the inventors, USF and the USF Research Foundation (USFRF) entered into a revenue allocation agreement assigning all rights in the invention to USF. The inventors also entered into a separate assignment agreement in 2002. The patent issued in 2003. The revenue allocation agreement was later followed by a nunc pro tunc license agreement, which recited an effective date of July 1997.

In May 2016, USFRF sued Fujifilm Medical Systems for infringement of the issued patent. USFRF pled that USF assigned its rights in the issued patent to USFRF such that USFRF was “currently the owner” of the patent. In June 2019, Fujifilm moved for summary judgment, arguing that USFRF lacked statutory standing because USF had not fully assigned the patent to USFRF. Five days later, USFRF amended its complaint to state that it was an exclusive licensee (i.e., it was not the assignee).

In May 2020, the district court dismissed the case, finding that USFRF lacked both statutory and constitutional standing. Analyzing the nunc pro tunc license agreement, the district court found a lack of statutory standing because the agreement was silent on (and thus did not transfer to USFRF) the right to sue to enforce the patent. The district court also found that USFRF lacked constitutional standing because USFRF had not established that the invention disclosure number in the license agreement corresponded to the issued patent and had not shown that the nunc pro tunc agreement was signed before the complaint was filed. USFRF appealed.

The Federal Circuit analyzed both statutory and constitutional standing and affirmed the district court’s finding with respect to statutory standing, reasoning that this case was analogous to others in which an exclusive licensee lacked statutory standing because the right to sue was either not transferred or only partially transferred. The Federal Circuit found that the district court had clearly erred with respect to constitutional standing, however. First, the Court held that there had been sufficient evidence tying the invention disclosure identified in the assignment agreement to the issued patent. Second, the Court found that it did not matter when the nunc pro tunc agreement was signed because the original revenue allocation agreement was signed before the complaint was filed and conveyed at least one exclusionary right to USFRF—enough for USFRF to have constitutional standing.

Because “the district court’s dismissal was predicated on constitutional standing,” the Federal Circuit remanded for further proceedings, including determination of whether USFRF may join USF.

[...]

Continue Reading

PTO Publishes Regulations to Implement Trademark Modernization Act

by Eleanor B. Atkins | Dec 2, 2021 | Trademarks

The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) recently published its final rules implementing provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA). Most changes are effective as of December 18, 2021, but certain changes (i.e., adjustments to the office action response period) won’t go into effect until December 1, 2022. The new regulations are summarized below.

Ex Parte Proceedings

The TMA created two new ex parte proceedings by which any third party (including the PTO director) can seek to challenge registrations for nonuse: Reexamination and expungement.

One of the TMA’s underlying legislative aims was to clean up the “clutter[ed]” register by removing registrations for marks not properly in use in commerce. These new proceedings offer efficient and less expensive alternatives to a cancellation proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board).

Reexamination

Any party (or the PTO director) can file a reexamination action to cancel some or all of the goods or services covered by a use-based registration if the trademark was not in use in commerce in connection with those goods or services before (1) the application filing date when the application was based on Section 1(a) (Use in Commerce), or (2) if the application was filed based on Section 1(b) (Intent to Use), the date the amendment to allege use was filed, or the deadline by which the applicant needed to file a statement of use, whichever is later. A reexamination proceeding must be initiated within the first five years of registration.

Expungement

Similarly, an expungement action can be brought by any party (including the PTO director) seeking to cancel some or all of the goods and/or services from a registration based on the registrant never having used the trademark in commerce in connection with the relevant goods/services. An expungement proceeding must be initiated between the third and 10th year of registration. However, until December 27, 2023, an expungement action can be requested for any registration that is at least three years old, regardless of how long it has been registered.

Requirements for Ex Parte Petitions

The final rules detail the requirements for a petition for expungement or reexamination:

A $400 fee
The US trademark registration number of the registration being challenged
The basis for the petition
The name and contact information of the petitioner
The name and contact information of the designated attorney, if any
A list of the goods and services that are subject to challenge
A verified statement of the facts, which should include details of the reasonable investigation of nonuse and a “concise factual statement of the relevant basis for the petition”
Copies of the supporting evidence with an itemized index.

A reasonable investigation of nonuse will vary depending on the nature of the goods and/or services but “should focus on the mark disclosed in the registration and the identified goods and/or services, keeping in mind their scope and applicable trade channels.” Also, “[a]s a general matter, a single search using an internet search engine likely would not be [...]

Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Clarifies Venue in Hatch-Waxman Case

by Mike Baldwin | Nov 18, 2021 | Patents

Addressing venue in the context of a Hatch-Waxman case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that sending a paragraph IV notice letter to a company in the district is insufficient to establish venue. Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 21-1154 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2021) (Prost, J.) The Court affirmed a district court finding that venue was improper since the defendant had not committed any acts of infringement and did not have a regular and established place of business in the district.

Celgene owns patents related to a multiple-myeloma drug that it markets and sells under the brand name Pomalyst. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (MPI) submitted abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) to the US Food & Drug Administration in order to bring a generic version of Pomalyst to market. Celgene filed suit in New Jersey against MPI and its related companies, Mylan Inc. and Mylan N.V. While Celgene is headquartered in New Jersey, MPI is based in West Virginia, Mylan, Inc. is based in Pennsylvania and Mylan N.V. is based in the Netherlands and Pennsylvania. The district court dismissed the case for improper venue (MPI and Mylan, Inc.) and for failure to state a claim (Mylan N.V.). Celgene appealed.

Citing Valeant v. Mylan, the Federal Circuit reiterated that venue for Hatch-Waxman cases must be predicated on past acts of infringement, and “it is the submission of the ANDA, and only the submission, that constitutes an act of infringement in this context.” Celgene argued that because MPI sent a paragraph IV notice letter from West Virginia to Celgene’s headquarters in New Jersey, acts of infringement occurred in New Jersey. Celgene also argued that since the notice letter was mandatory and the ANDA had to be amended to include proof of delivery, the delivery of the letter was “sufficiently related to the ANDA submission.” The Court disagreed, explaining that venue in Hatch-Waxman cases is focused on the submission of the ANDA itself, including acts involved in the preparation of an ANDA submission. The Court noted these acts must be part of the ANDA submission and that Celgene’s “related to” standard was impermissibly broad. The Court found that since the submission of the ANDA did not take place in New Jersey, venue there was improper.

The Federal Circuit also found that neither MPI nor Mylan, Inc. had a regular and established place of business in New Jersey. Celgene argued both had a regular and established place of business based on places associated with Mylan employees as well as Mylan affiliates. In rejecting these arguments, the Court noted that the employees Celgene pointed to were working remotely from home, and that the employee’s home numbers were contained in business communications. However, the Court noted that there was no indication that the defendants owned, leased or rented the employees’ homes; participated in the selection of the homes; stored inventory there or took any other actions to suggest that they had an intention to maintain a place of [...]

Continue Reading

US Lawyers Aiding Scam Trademark Applications May Face Sanctions

by Sarah Bro | Oct 28, 2021 | Trademarks

As reported by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) this past summer, since mid-2020 trademark applications from US and foreign applicants have “surged to unprecedented levels.” In December 2020 alone, the PTO received 92,608 trademark applications, an increase of 172% over December 2019. Not only has this extraordinary volume of applications created a backlog and delay in the procedural review of new US trademark application filings, but the PTO is experiencing a notable increase in what it calls “suspicious submissions ranging from inaccurate to fraudulent.”

These illegitimate trademark filings harm the quality and integrity of the trademark register and have significant legal and financial impact on legitimate brand owners whose applications may be blocked by fraudulent filings for marks that are identical or similar to their real brands. Faced with a legal obligation to defend and enforce their trademarks, legitimate brand owners are forced to dispute such illegitimate filings with letters of protest, by filing oppositions or cancellation actions in the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, and even by taking action in the federal courts. Such enforcement and defensive actions can clog up these forums and force brand owners to take on costs that would not otherwise be necessary, and which may distract from, or reduce the budget for, real trademark disputes.

The PTO outlined various strategies and tools to review, assess, challenge and combat suspicious and fraudulent filings, including aspects of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020. In 2019, the PTO also implemented a rule requiring any overseas trademark applicant to file with a US lawyer. The requirement for a US lawyer appears to have resulted in many foreign applicants (primarily from China) making up fake names, addresses and bar credentials for the US lawyers named in their applications. Not all named US lawyers are fake, however, as the PTO’s investigations into certain lawyers lodging a high volume of trademark filings for Chinese-based applicants have revealed that some US-based lawyers may be taking on clients from China without conducting proper diligence as to the veracity of the client’s trademark application information. For example, the PTO’s investigation of some potentially illegitimate filings from applicants in China reveal doctored or disingenuous specimens of use, including e-commerce listings for products that may not actually exist or are no longer “in stock” (and likely never were “in stock”).

In September 2021, the PTO’s investigations into US lawyers with a high volume of filings for Chinese applicants resulted in two sanctions orders. The first was issued against a lawyer found to have filed thousands of applications for overseas parties deemed fraudulent by operating as a US-based agent for a centralized “filing gateway” platform located in India. The sanction order includes a 12-month probationary period and required ethics and trademarks classes. The second sanction against a US-based lawyer specifically noted that the lawyer did not do enough to properly review the applications that they signed on behalf of an applicant based in China. It has [...]

Continue Reading

This Case Is Both Hot and Exceptional—Attorneys’ Fees and Inequitable Conduct

by Paul Devinsky | Oct 28, 2021 | Patents

In a second visit to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, after the Court affirmed a finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct based on “bad faith” non-disclosure of statutory bar prior sales on the first visit, the Court affirmed a remand award of attorneys’ fees based on a finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Energy Heating, LLC v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC, Case No. 20-2038 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2021) (Prost, J.)

In its earlier decision, the Federal Circuit remanded the case after reversing a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees, finding that while the district court correctly found that Heat On-The Fly (HOTF) committed inequitable conduct in failing to disclose to the US Patent & Trademark Office multiple instances of prior use of the claimed method, the district court failed to articulate a basis for denying attorneys’ fees other than that HOTF articulated substantial arguments (experimental use) against the finding of inequitable conduct.

On remand, the district court found the case “exceptional” because it “stands out from others within the meaning of § 285 considering recent case law, the nature and extent of HOTF’s inequitable conduct, and the jury’s findings of bad faith.” HOTF appealed.

HOTF contended that the district court abused its discretion by relying on the jury’s bad-faith finding because that finding “had nothing to do with the strength or weakness of HOTF’s litigation positions.” Citing the 2014 Supreme Court decision in Octane Fitness, the Federal Circuit rebuffed that argument, explaining that “HOTF made representations in bad faith that it held a valid patent [which] was within the district court’s ‘equitable discretion’ to consider as part of the totality of the circumstances of HOTF’s infringement case.”

HOTF also argued that the district court erroneously relied on the jury verdict in finding exceptionality because, since the jury found that HOTF did not commit the tort of deceit, it could not have engaged in inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit rebuffed this argument as well, noting that inequitable conduct was tried to the district court—not the jury—resulting in a judgment of unenforceability that the Court affirmed in the prior appeal and that the jury’s finding of no state-law “deceit” had no bearing on inequitable conduct.

The Federal Circuit further explained that HOTF’s assertion that under the Court’s 2020 decision in Electronic Communication Technologies v. ShoppersChoice.com, the district court was not required to affirmatively weigh whether HOTF’s purported “lack of litigation misconduct” was incorrect. Rather, “the manner in which [patentee] litigated the case or its broader litigation conduct” is merely “a relevant consideration.” Under Octane, the test for whether a case is “exceptional” under § 285 is whether it is “one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position . . . or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.”

Finally, the Federal Circuit noted that the district court correctly explained that “[a] finding of inequitable conduct [...]

Continue Reading