IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Results for "Patent filing"
Subscribe to Results for "Patent filing"'s Posts

It’s Good to Be the Sovereign, Unless You Have an Exclusive Licensee

by | Aug 5, 2020 |

Addressing the interaction between state sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment and joinder under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “fractured majority” of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that an exclusive licensee could proceed with suit even though state sovereign immunity prohibited involuntary joinder of the patent owner. Gensetix, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, Case No. 19-1424 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2020) (O’Malley, J.) (Newman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (Taranto, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In 2014, Gensetix indirectly licensed two patents covering cancer treatment methods from the University of Texas (UT), a state university. A subsequent confirmation between Gensetix and UT confirmed Gensetix’s exclusive license to the patents-in-suit, which required Gensetix to sue potential infringers and gave UT a secondary right to sue if Gensetix did not bring suit. The parties further agreed to cooperate regarding any infringement suit and that nothing in the agreement would waive UT’s sovereign immunity.

Three years later, Gensetix sued Baylor College of Medicine and others for patent infringement. Before filing the complaint, Gensetix asked UT, the legal patent owner, to join suit. UT declined, and Gensetix named it as an involuntary plaintiff. UT moved to dismiss itself from the lawsuit based on its sovereign immunity, and Baylor moved to dismiss because UT was a required party that could not be joined because of its sovereign immunity. The district court agreed with UT and Baylor, concluding that UT’s sovereign immunity prevented Gensetix from joining UT as a plaintiff and that the suit could not proceed without UT. Gensetix appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed. The majority opinion, authored by Judge O’Malley, held that UT’s sovereign immunity prohibited its joinder as an involuntary plaintiff, but that Gensetix could proceed in its suit against Baylor notwithstanding UT’s absence. The Court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that UT’s 11th Amendment state sovereign immunity prohibited UT’s involuntary joinder. Reasoning that “[i]t is immaterial that there are no claims against UT, or that UT is named an involuntary plaintiff rather than an involuntary defendant,” the Court held that “Rule 19(a)(2) cannot be used to drag an unwilling UT into federal court” because “[t]he Eleventh Amendment serves to prevent ‘the indignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals’ against its will.” As for the exclusive licensee’s ability to proceed without UT, the Court explained that the district court abused its discretion by giving “controlling weight” to UT’s sovereign immunity, by failing to appreciate the alignment of interests between Gensetix and UT, and by ignoring that the license eliminated the risk of multiple suits because UT could not sue after Gensetix had done so.

Although both conclusions commanded a majority, they were different majorities. In a separate opinion, Judge Taranto agreed that UT could not be joined, but would also have held that Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel—a Supreme Court case requiring dismissal of claims where an absent [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Joined Parties Have Rights Too

by | Jul 22, 2020 | ,

In vacating an unpatentability decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the rights of a joined party to an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding applies to the entirety of the proceedings and includes the right of appeal. Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., Case No. 19-1048 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2020) (Newman, J.).

Apple petitioned the Board for IPR of certain claims of a patent owned by Valencell. The Board granted the petition in part, instituting review of certain claims and denying review of other claims. After institution of the Apple IPR, Fitbit filed an IPR petition for the instituted claims and moved for joinder with Apple’s IPR. The Board granted Fitbit’s petition, granted the motion for joinder and terminated Fitbit’s separate proceeding.

After the Apple/Fitbit IPR hearing, but before any Final Written Decision was issued, the Supreme Court decided SAS Institute v. Iancu (IP Update, Vol. 21, No. 5), holding that the America Invents Act requires that all patent claims challenged in an IPR petition must be reviewed by the Board if the petition is granted. Accordingly, the Board re-instituted the Apple/Fitbit IPR to add the previously denied patent claims. The Board’s Final Written Decision found the originally instituted claims unpatentable, but the newly instituted claims not unpatentable. After the decision, Apple withdrew from the proceeding. Fitbit appealed the decision as to newly instituted claims that had been found not unpatentable.

On appeal, Valencell challenged Fitbit’s right to appeal as to the newly instituted claims. 35 U.S.C. § 319 provides that “[a]ny party to the inter partes review shall have the right to be a party to the appeal.” Valencell argued that Fitbit does not have the status of “party” for purposes of appeal because Fitbit did not request review of the newly instituted claims in its initial IPR petition, did not request leave to amend its initial petition after the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute and did not submit a separate brief with respect to the non-instituted claims after the joined IPR was re-instituted. Valencell also argued that because the Board stated that Fitbit would have “limited participation, if at all, and required Fitbit to seek authorization from the Board before filing any papers,” Fitbit was not a full participant in the joined IPR.

Fitbit responded that Valencell did not object to Fitbit’s joinder and did not object to or seek to qualify Fitbit’s continued participation after the Board re-instituted the joined IPR to include the new claims, so there was only one IPR. Fitbit also cited the Board’s statement in granting its joinder motion that the “[d]ecision addressing the status of each challenged claim in this proceeding applies to all parties.” Fitbit acknowledged that it did not seek to file a separate brief after the new claims were added to the IPR, but claimed no separate brief was needed to present the issues.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Fitbit, finding that the circumstances [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTAB Time Bar Application in Instituting IPR Proceedings Nonappealable

by | May 7, 2020 | ,

Addressing the scope of review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) application of the one-year time bar of 35 USC § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Supreme Court of the United States held that application of the time bar by the PTAB is nonappealable. Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, Case No. 18-916 (Supr. Ct. Apr. 20, 2019) (Ginsburg, Justice) (Gorsuch, Justice, joined in part by Sotomayor, Justice, dissenting). The Court explained that an appeal based on the PTAB’s application of the time bar for filing an IPR petition is prohibited under 35 USC § 314(d), which states that the PTAB’s decision on institution “shall be final and nonappealable.”

(more…)



read more

Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply to AIA Challenges

by | May 7, 2020 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that while assignor estoppel prevents a party that assigned a patent to another party from later challenging the validity of the assigned patent in district court, it does not preclude the party from challenging the validity of the assigned patent in an America Invents Act inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., Case Nos. 19-2054; -2081 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) (Stoll, J.) (Stoll, J., additional views).

(more…)



read more

Prevailing at the PTAB Can Mean Prevailing Party Attorneys’ Fees

by | May 7, 2020 |

Addressing whether attorneys’ fees may be awarded in a patent infringement lawsuit where an accused infringer successfully invalidates claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the accused infringer is considered the “prevailing party” for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 285, but remanded for consideration on whether fees incurred in IPR proceedings can be awarded. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1283 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) (Moore, J.).

(more…)



read more

Can’t Have Layered Architecture Cake and Eat It Too: No Importing Limitations from Specification in § 101 Analysis

by | Apr 30, 2020 |

Addressing both the availability of appeal in the absence of a Rule 50(b) motion and the appropriateness of importing limitations from the specification in a 35 USC § 101 analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that a patent was not invalid under § 101. Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., Case No. 18-2003 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2020) (Prost, CJ.) (Newman, J., dissenting).

(more…)



read more

Prima Facie Obviousness Established Where Claimed pH Range Overlaps with Prior Art Range for Similar Compounds

by | Apr 23, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment that found a patent was not obvious because the claimed pH range would not have been obvious-to-try despite overlapping ranges between the claimed pH range and the pH range for similar prior art compounds. Valeant Pharms. Intl. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., Case No. 18-2097 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020) (Lourie, J.).

(more…)



read more

US Copyright Office, USPTO Act to Assist Those Affected by COVID-19

by | Apr 9, 2020 | ,

On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which authorized the US Copyright Office (USCO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to temporarily waive or modify certain statutory deadlines. Prior to the CARES Act, the USPTO and USCO had sought to provide relief to intellectual property owners by waiving certain fees (including, for example, fees associated with petitions to revive abandoned applications), but had been limited by their inability to modify statutory deadlines.

The extensions will undoubtedly provide needed relief for certain rights holders during this tumultuous time. Nonetheless, if possible, adhering to original deadlines is the safest route, and parties should first carefully review the USPTO and USCO notices with a lawyer to determine whether the extensions are applicable and legally prudent.

(more…)



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES