You searched for Patent filing - Page 8 of 31

Results for "Patent filing"

Don’t Assume Sweet Success: Forum Selection Clause Doesn’t Preclude IPR

by Thomas DaMario | Jan 11, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to bar a petitioner from challenging certain patents at the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) because of a forum selection clause in a settlement agreement. The Court found that the patent owner was unlikely to succeed on the merits based on the likelihood of success factor. DexCom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., Case No. 23-1795 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2024) (Dyk, Hughes, Stoll, JJ.)

DexCom and Abbott are competing manufacturers of continuous glucose monitoring systems. In 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that included a cross-license to certain patents, covenants not to sue or challenge the patents for a “Covenant Period,” and a forum selection clause identifying the US District Court for the District of Delaware as the exclusive jurisdiction “over any dispute arising from or under or relating to [the] Agreement, to the extent permitted by law.” After expiration of the Covenant Period, DexCom sued Abbott in the Western District of Texas. Abbott moved to transfer the case to the District of Delaware and added a breach of contract counterclaim, citing the settlement agreement’s forum selection clause. The case was transferred to Delaware, after which Abbott filed eight petitions for inter partes review (IPR) at the PTO. DexCom responded to the breach of contract counterclaim by alleging that Abbott had breached the forum selection clause by filing the IPR petitions. Until this point, DexCom had consistently taken the position that the asserted claims were not subject to the cross-license, rendering the forum selection clause inapplicable.

Six months after Abbott filed the IPR petitions, DexCom moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IPRs from proceeding. The district court denied the preliminary injunction. In evaluating the four injunctive relief factors (i.e., likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships and public interest), the district court simply assumed the likelihood of success in favor of DexCom. It nevertheless denied the injunction because DexCom waited six months to file the motion (suggesting there was no irreparable harm) and because DexCom had taken inconsistent legal positions with respect to whether the challenged patents were licensed, thus weighing against DexCom in the balance of hardships factor. DexCom sought interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order.

The Federal Circuit focused on the first factor, likelihood of success on the merits. While the district court assumed that this factor favored DexCom, the Federal Circuit disagreed. The Court noted that the agreement required that DexCom and Abbott “shall not Challenge” each other’s patents during the Covenant Period, with the exception that “each Party reserves its rights and is permitted to Challenge any of the patents of the other Party if there is a statute, regulation, or rule that sets a deadline to make the Challenge,” assuming certain conditions were met. The Court first explained that “challenge” includes IPRs of the patents and that nothing in the forum selection clause differentiated between the [...]

Continue Reading

If the Label Is Skinny Enough – No Inducement Under Hatch-Waxman

by Ian J. Howard | Dec 14, 2023 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made explicit what has long been considered implicit based on Warner-Lambert and its progeny, namely, that plaintiffs asserting an induced infringement theory to bar the entry of generic drugs in a Hatch-Waxman suit are subject to higher scrutiny than plaintiffs asserting the same theories outside of the Hatch-Waxman context. H. Lundbeck A/S v. Lupin Ltd., Case No. 22-1194 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2023) (Dyk, Prost, Hughes, JJ.)

Lundbeck owns the approved new drug application (NDA) for Trintellix®, a drug indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), as well as an expired compound patent for the associated active ingredient vortioxetine. Lundbeck also owns a patent that claims the use of vortioxetine as an antidepressant that can be prescribed in place of a traditional antidepressant to alleviate a patient’s negative sexual side effects, and another patent that claims the use of vortioxetine to treat cognitive impairment symptoms in patients with MDD.

Generic pharmaceutical companies filed abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) seeking approval to market generic versions of Trintellix® and asserting that Lundbeck’s unexpired patents listed in its NDA were invalid and would not be infringed by the generic companies. As required by the Hatch-Waxman Act (to prevent the entry of a generic on the market), Lundbeck sued the generic companies. At the district court, the defendants prevailed on the finding of noninfringement but lost on invalidity. Lundbeck appealed.

Lundbeck pressed its induced infringement and contributory infringement theories on appeal. Lundbeck argued that the generics infringed under the plain text of Hatch-Waxman (35 USC 271(e)(2)(A)) because they filed ANDAs seeking approval to market vortioxetine, and that “some uses of vortioxetine—for the treatment of patients that have previously taken other drugs but had to cease or reduce use due to sexually related adverse events and for the treatment of cognitive impairment—are covered by [Lundbeck’s listed] patents; and the labels do not prohibit prescribing vortioxetine for those uses, even though the defendants do not propose to market the drug for those patented uses.” In other words, Lundbeck argued that in terms of its inducement allegation, it made no difference whether a drug would be sold for a use not covered by Lundberg’s NDA-listed patents because the drug could be prescribed for those patented uses.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining that “‘the use’ in § 271(e)(2)(A) refers to the use for which the FDA has granted an NDA” and for which the ANDA was submitted.” The Court emphasized that it is not “an act of infringement under . . . § 271(e)(2)(A) to submit an ANDA for a drug if just any use of that drug were claimed in a patent.” If it were, a brand could “maintain its exclusivity merely by regularly filing a new patent application claiming a narrow method of use not covered by its NDA,” which “would confer substantial additional rights on pioneer drug patent owners that Congress quite clearly did not intend to confer.” As the Court then held, “actions for [...]

Continue Reading

Wave Goodbye: Arguments Incorporated by Reference Are Waived

by Benjamin Ediger, Ph.D. | Nov 30, 2023 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s patentability determination, finding that the patent challenger waived an argument it attempted to incorporate by reference to another brief. Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Scis. Ltd., Case No. 2022-1721 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2023) (Lourie, Prost, Chen, JJ.)

Teleflex owns a patent directed to a method for using a guide extension catheter with a guide catheter. Medtronic challenged the patent in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, arguing that certain claims were obvious in light of Ressemann and Itou and that another claim was obvious in light of Ressemann, Itou and Kataishi. Teleflex argued that Itou was not prior art because the claimed invention was conceived prior to Itou’s filing date and was either actually reduced to practice before the critical date or diligently pursued until its constructive reduction to practice date. Medtronic did not contest Teleflex’s demonstration of conception but instead challenged Teleflex’s alleged showings of both actual reduction to practice and diligence until constructive reduction to practice.

The Board ultimately found that Itou did not qualify as prior art and that Medtronic therefore had not shown that the challenged claims were unpatentable. One of the issues before the Board was whether in vivo testing was required for actual reduction to practice because the claims at issue were method claims reciting “advancing . . . a guide catheter . . . through a main blood vessel to an ostium of a coronary artery.” The Board ultimately found that no such testing was required, explaining that Medtronic “was unable to identify any legal precedent requiring in vivo performance of a claimed in vivo method to show actual reduction to practice.” According to the Board, actual reduction to practice could “be verified using a physical model that replicates the anatomy in which the method would likewise be performed in vivo.” Medtronic appealed.

Medtronic challenged the Board’s determination regarding constructive reduction to practice, arguing as follows:

In addressing diligence, the Board simply adopted its earlier erroneous diligence analysis in IPR2020-00132. Appx61–62. Therefore, if this Court vacates the Board’s diligence holding in No. 21-2356, it should likewise vacate the Board’s decision here. Appellant’s Br. at 41.

The Federal Circuit explained that it did not vacate the diligence holding in the prior decision, so Medtronic’s condition precedent had not been met. Medtronic nevertheless urged the Court to decide the diligence question. The Court refused, finding that Medtronic improperly incorporated by reference an argument from another brief. The Court explained that it would be fundamentally unfair to allow Medtronic to use incorporation by reference to exceed the word limit on briefs. The Court observed that parties pursuing appeals must make certain strategic decisions concerning what material to include in their opening briefs, and here, Medtronic affirmatively chose not to include developed arguments on diligence. The Court therefore found that Medtronic waived its challenge to the Board’s diligence finding. With the diligence issue waived and conception stipulated, the Court affirmed [...]

Continue Reading

TikTok Makes It Out of West Texas to Sunny Northern California

by Kathleen Lynch | Nov 16, 2023 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a writ of mandamus ordering the transfer of a case, finding that the district court’s denial of the motion to transfer “was so patently erroneous” that the extreme measure was appropriate. In re TikTok, Inc., Case No. 23-50575 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2023) (Smith, Southwick, Wilson, JJ.)

In the underlying case, Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co. sued TikTok in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement, trade secret misappropriation and false advertising. All claims stemmed from the theory that a former Meishe employee disclosed copyrighted source code for video and audio editing software to TikTok, which TikTok then implemented into its app. Meishe and TikTok are Chinese companies, and both the alleged disclosure and TikTok’s alleged code implementation occurred in China, assisted by TikTok engineers in California. TikTok has no engineers in Texas but does maintain a business office there, although not within the Western District.

TikTok moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The district court took 11 months to rule on the motion, and in the meantime the case continued through discovery. After the district court denied the motion, TikTok petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a writ of mandamus.

The sole issue on mandamus was the propriety of the district court’s refusal to transfer venue. To succeed on a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must satisfy the reviewing court regarding the following questions:

Are there other ways to obtain the desired relief?
Is the reviewing court’s right to issue the writ “clear and indisputable”?
Is the writ appropriate, given the circumstances?

The Fifth Circuit focused on the second question, its right to issue the writ. In the Fifth Circuit, the 2008 en banc In re Volkswagen case mandates an eight-factor test that a district court must consider in deciding a § 1404 transfer motion. No one factor is dispositive, and the Fifth Circuit has cautioned against tallying the yes/no results or denying transfer just because most factors are neutral. Unsurprisingly, in the 15 years since Volkswagen, district courts applying these factors have reached inconsistent results. Even the Fifth Circuit has reached “conflicting outcomes” when reviewing these cases. The Fifth Circuit therefore took the opportunity to address each factor.

The Fifth Circuit found that two factors weighed in favor of transfer:

The relative ease of access to sources of proof
The cost of attendance of willing witnesses

Regarding ease of access to proof, the Fifth Circuit clarified that factfinders analyze “relative ease of access, not absolute ease of access” to documents and other physical evidence. The district court had determined that this factor was neutral, given that most documentation was electronic. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, explaining that while the source code was electronically stored, it was protected by a high level of security clearance. Only certain TikTok employees based in California and China were able to access the code. Using the relative metric, [...]

Continue Reading

No Money, Mo’ Problems: Speculative Damages Award Cannot Stand

by Kathleen Lynch | Oct 26, 2023 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s claim construction and jury instructions but reversed a premature judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on obviousness and an imprecise damages award. Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics. Corp., Case No. 22-1873 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ)

Cyntec sued Chilisin for willful infringement of two patents related to molded chokes, which are component parts in batteries and power supplies. Four events at trial led to this appeal. First, the district court construed the disputed “by means of” term by its plain meaning but also instructed the jury that when a result occurs “by means of” a factor, that factor “has an impact on”—but may not be the “only potential cause” of—the result. Second, Chilisin presented invalidity evidence, arguing that the asserted claims were obvious by one prior art reference in light of another.

Before Chilisin could cross-examine Cyntec’s rebuttal expert, the district court granted Cyntec’s JMOL, finding the patents not obvious. In the third event that led to the appeal, Cyntec presented a market-share lost profits theory of damages based on expert testimony. Chilisin unsuccessfully moved to exclude the testimony as being speculative and unreliable. The jury awarded more than $1.8 million in damages and the district court subsequently granted enhanced damages totaling more than $5.5 million. As for the fourth event, Chilisin unsuccessfully moved for JMOL and a new trial on multiple issues. Chilisin then appealed.

The Federal Circuit reviewed three issues on appeal:

The nonobviousness JMOL
The infringement findings
The damages award.

Starting with nonobviousness, the Federal Circuit reversed the JMOL and remanded. While obviousness is ultimately a legal question, it relies on “numerous underlying factual findings,” including the scope/content/differences of prior art, the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art and objective indicia of nonobviousness such as commercial success. The Court found Chilisin had presented enough evidence to allow a jury to find the asserted claims obvious in light of the two prior art references presented. The Federal Circuit also analyzed the district court’s reasoning regarding the prior art and found that its “conclusions are either insufficient to support JMOL or unsupported by the evidence.” Thus, it was improper to withhold a partial fact issue from the jury.

Next, the Federal Circuit analyzed the infringement issue, dividing the analysis into the district court’s claim construction and jury instructions, and the jury’s infringement finding. Chilisin argued that the disputed term “by means of” should signal but-for causation, meaning the factor must cause the result. The Court agreed that this was one possible reading, but because the claim language did not read “by exclusive/primary means” or something similar, the disputed term could also encompass “mere contribution.” The Federal Circuit cited to the specification in support of its claim interpretation and ultimately upheld the district court’s claim construction and the consistent jury instructions. The Court rejected Chilisin’s argument that there was insufficient evidence of infringement, concluding [...]

Continue Reading

Should This Be an Alice Two-Step or a Section 112 Enablement Waltz?

by Katherine Pappas | Aug 10, 2023 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit for lack of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on an Alice two-step analysis, with Judge Newman filing a sharp dissent focused on “the current law of § 101.” Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc., Case No. 2021-2251 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2023) (non-precedential) (Reyna, Taranto, JJ.) (Newman, J., dissenting).

From November 2017 through December 2018, Realtime brought suits against multiple defendant corporations asserting infringement of multiple Realtime patents related to methods and systems for digital data compression. In 2019, some defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the asserted patent claims were patent ineligible under § 101. In an oral ruling from the bench, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the district court had provided too cursory a ruling to allow for meaningful appellate review, and therefore vacated and remanded for the district court to provide a more detailed § 101 analysis.

On remand in 2021, the district court issued a written opinion working through the two-step analysis laid down by the Supreme Court in Alice. Step 1 evaluates whether the asserted claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea, and Step 2 searches for an “inventive concept” by considering the claims to determine whether any elements “transform the nature of the claim” from ineligible subject matter into a patent-eligible application, which must amount to more than “well-understood, routine, or conventional activities.” The district court found the patents invalid under § 101 and granted the motions to dismiss Realtime’s complaints but gave Realtime the opportunity to file amended complaints. After Realtime did so, the defendants renewed their motions to dismiss. The district court again dismissed Realtime’s complaints based on § 101. In ruling so, the district court first found that there were no material differences between Realtime’s prior and amended complaints with respect to the § 101 analysis. Next, the court incorporated by reference its prior ruling’s legal analysis, reaffirmed its finding that the claims were invalid under § 101 and granted dismissal, this time without granting Realtime leave to file amended complaints. Realtime appealed.

This time the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. In affirming, the Federal Circuit worked through the Alice two-step inquiry and agreed with the district court on each step. At Step 1, the Court agreed that “none of the claims at issue specifies any particular technique to carry out the compression of data” but instead were all “data manipulation claims that are recited at a high level of result-oriented generality and that lack sufficient recitation of how the purported inventions accomplish the results” (quoting Koninklijke). At Step 2, the Court agreed that the asserted patents “simply apply an abstract idea on generic computers with generic techniques,” thus failing to cross over into eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the Court held that the claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and affirmed dismissal under § 101.

Judge [...]

Continue Reading

Don’t Ruin Today’s CNS with Yesterday’s Problems

by Benjamin Ediger, Ph.D. | Aug 10, 2023 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s trademark invalidity finding based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction because a covenant not to sue (CNS) issued by the trademark owner precluded any reasonably expected future injury that the alleged infringer might incur. Nursery Decals & More, Inc. v. Neat Print, Inc., Case No. 22-10065 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2023) (Haynes, Engelhardt, JJ.; deGravelles, Dist. J., sitting by designation) (per curiam).

Neat Print and Nursery Decals sold novelty t-shirts on online marketplaces. In 2018, Neat Print notified one of the online marketplaces that Nursery Decals’ products allegedly infringed Neat Print’s trademarks. In response, the online marketplace sent Nursery Decals a final warning threatening a site ban for any future violations. Nursery Decals complied with the warning and also preemptively pulled its products from other online marketplaces.

Nursery Decals sued Neat Print in the Northern District of Texas. Most of Nursery Decals’ claims were directed to invalidating Neat Print’s trademarks or obtaining a noninfringement judgment. Nursery Decal also included three claims seeking damages. One was a federal claim for fraud on the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO). The other two claims were Texas law claims based on tortious interference with an existing business relationship and a prospective business relationship. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment on all of the trademark-related claims, ordering the PTO to cancel all of the disputed trademarks.

Prior to the district court’s summary judgment grant, Neat Print tried to avoid summary judgment by filing a CNS along with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the CNS did not moot the case. The district court explained that Neat Print’s CNS did not address Nursery Decals’ past and potential future injuries (i.e., Nursery Decals’ damages claims). The district court also found that Neat Print’s CNS did not meet the high standard set forth in the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Already, reasoning that Neat Print’s CNS left the door open for future take-down notices based on the disputed trademarks.

Neat Print amended its CNS to address take-down notices. It then filed a motion to reconsider its motion to dismiss in light of the modified CNS. The district court orally denied the motion at the pretrial conference and ordered that the case proceed to trial. The jury ultimately found no liability on both claims. After the trial, the district court issued a written opinion explaining that it rejected Neat Print’s motion for reconsideration because Nursery Decals had a legally cognizable injury that supported subject matter jurisdiction. While Neat Print had defeated all of Nursery Decals’ damages claims, Neat Print appealed the district court’s judgment with respect to the trademark claims, arguing that the district court failed to properly evaluate subject matter jurisdiction on a claim-by-claim basis in view of Neat Print’s CNS.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with Neat Print, finding that the district court committed two errors. First, the district [...]

Continue Reading

No Snipe Hunting: AIA Adherence Means No Interference (Proceedings)

by Jake B. Vallen | Jul 27, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that patents and applications that have only ever contained claims with an effective filing date after March 16, 2013—i.e., pure America Invents Act (AIA) patents—may not be subjected to an interference proceeding by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director. SNIPR Techs. Ltd. v. Rockefeller Univ., Case No. 2022-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023) (Chen, Wallach, Hughes, JJ.)

SNIPR Technologies owns a family of five patents directed to methods of selectively killing bacteria using clustered regulatory interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) gene editing. SNIPR was involved in an interference proceeding with Rockefeller University, which filed a patent application for technology also directed to selectively killing bacteria. The SNIPR patents claimed priority to a Patent Cooperation Treaty application filed on May 3, 2016, thus placing the SNIPR patents squarely within the scope of the AIA. The Rockefeller application claimed priority to, among other things, a US provisional application filed on February 7, 2013, making the Rockefeller application a pure pre-AIA application. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board initially declared an interference between claims 20 to 33 of the Rockefeller application and all claims of the SNIPR patents. The Board ultimately identified Rockefeller as the senior party and canceled all of SNIPR’s claims. SNIPR appealed.

The issue before the Federal Circuit was whether the Board had the authority to cancel SNIPR’s pure AIA claims for lack of invention priority under pre-AIA § 102(g), and more broadly, whether pure AIA patents may, as a matter of law, be part of an interference proceeding.

First, the Federal Circuit examined the plain language of AIA § 3(n) and the statutory purpose and history of the AIA. The Court reasoned that “AIA § 3(n) makes clear that [unless Congress provides otherwise,] only pure pre-AIA and mixed patents may be part of an interference.” As the Court stated, AIA § 3(n)(1) does not permit the AIA’s amendments to apply retroactively and the AIA repealed the statutory grant of power to hear interferences (pre-AIA § 135), instead providing for derivation proceedings.

Next, the Federal Circuit addressed Rockefeller’s and the Director’s arguments that the statutory language of pre-AIA § 135(a) authorizes the Director to declare an interference for “any unexpired patent”—including unexpired pure AIA patents. Unpersuaded, the Court concluded that pre-AIA § 135(a), read in conjunction with the AIA, excludes pure AIA patents for the following reasons:

The AIA replaced interference proceedings with derivation proceedings.
The AIA deleted all other references to interferences.
The AIA repealed the first-to-invent system of patentability, rendering interference proceedings superfluous.
Permitting interferences for pure AIA patents would subject AIA patents to interferences “for over twenty years after the AIA’s effective date,” which would be contrary to the purpose of the AIA—to implement the first-to-file system of patentability.

Moreover, such a statutory construction would belie AIA § 3(n)(2), which expressly allows for interferences for mixed patents (i.e., patents and applications that contain, or contained at any time, at least one claim with [...]

Continue Reading

First Rule of the PTAB? Play by the Rules

by Christian Tatum | Jun 22, 2023 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions holding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, even though the Board declined to consider evidence of antedating and found that the claims lacked written description support. Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, Case Nos. 22-1269; -1270 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2023) (Lourie, Bryson, Reyna, JJ.)

Parus Holdings owns two patents related to an interactive voice system to request information from a voice web browser. Google (among others) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the patents.

During the IPR proceedings, the Board found that a publication (Kovatch) was prior art to the challenged patents. In reaching that decision, the Board declined to consider Parus’s arguments and evidence of an earlier conception and reduction to practice because they were only presented via incorporation by reference in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). The Board ruled that Parus failed to meet its burden of production on antedating.

The Board also found that the publication of the application to which Parus’s challenged patents claimed priority (Kurganov-262) was prior art because the common specification failed to provide written description support for the challenged claims. Parus appealed the Board’s decision, raising two main arguments.

First, Parus contended that the Board erred when it declined to consider Parus’s arguments and evidence on antedating. Parus argued that § 42.6(a)(3)’s prohibition on incorporation by reference did not warrant the Board’s decision because Parus, as patent owner, need not have submitted a response at all. Parus also argued that the Federal Circuit’s 2017 decision in Aqua Products mandates that the Board consider all record evidence, regardless of the manner of presentation. The Federal Circuit rejected Parus’s arguments in turn.

Regarding Parus’s violation of the incorporation by reference rule, the Federal Circuit explained that Parus had assumed an affirmative burden of production when it chose to submit a response to antedate Kovatch. Along with that burden came other responsibilities, such as complying with the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) rules and regulations, including § 42.6(a)(3). The Court further explained that this burden of production could not be met without some combination of citing evidence with specificity and explaining the significance of the cited material. Parus did neither.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Parus’s argument that the Board is required by law to review all evidence in the record. The Court clarified that, while its Aqua Products holding requires the Board to decide all issues properly before it, nothing in Aqua Products requires the Board to review evidence or issues not introduced or introduced in violation of the Board’s rules. As the Court noted, “[t]he burden of production cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence. One cannot reasonably expect the Board to sift through hundreds of documents, thousands of pages, to find the relevant facts.”

Parus also argued that the Board exceeded its statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. [...]

Continue Reading

Inventorship Hosed Clean: Contribution, Corroboration and Collaboration Prove Joint Invention

by James M. Oehler | Jun 22, 2023 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision to correct inventorship, finding that the alleged joint inventor’s contribution to a claimed invention was significant and adequately corroborated by evidence. Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case Nos. 21-2316; -2317 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2023) (Prost, Chen, Stark, JJ.)

Blue Gentian owns utility and design patents directed to an expandable hose. Prior to filing the first patent application, Michael Berardi (the sole inventor of the asserted patents and Blue Gentian’s principal) met with non-party Gary Ragner to discuss investing in Ragner’s expandable hose. Berardi had no experience designing hoses at the time of the meeting. Berardi testified that he came up with the idea of his hose after watching a demonstration video of Ragner’s hose but before the meeting. At the meeting, Ragner disclosed a prototype and documents relating to his hose and discussed the inner components of the hose. Berardi built his first prototype a day after the meeting and filed his first patent application three months later. Blue Gentian subsequently filed suit against Tristar for infringement of its expandable hose patents. Tristar counterclaimed to correct inventorship of the patents, alleging that Ragner should have been named a co-inventor.

A court may order a correction of inventorship when it determines that an inventor has been erroneously omitted from a patent. The inventors listed on an issued patent, however, are presumed to be the only true inventors. Thus, a party must prove incorrect inventorship by clear and convincing evidence. An alleged joint inventor’s testimony standing alone is insufficient to establish inventorship by clear and convincing evidence; the testimony must be corroborated by evidence. A joint inventor must contribute significantly to the invention’s conception or reduction to practice, and the contribution must involve some collaboration with the other inventor.

The district court, after an evidentiary hearing, entered judgment on the inventorship counterclaim in Tristar’s favor and ordered correction of the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 256. Blue Gentian appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that Ragner conveyed three key elements of the hose to Berardi at the meeting and that these elements were a significant contribution to the conception of at least one claim of each asserted patent. The Court noted that these were the very elements Blue Gentian used to distinguish the invention from the prior art, establishing the element’s significance. The Court also found that Ragner’s testimony about conveying the three elements to Berardi at the meeting was adequately corroborated by both physical and circumstantial evidence. The evidence showed the similarity between Ragner’s disclosed prototype and Berardi’s first prototype, and documentary evidence showed Ragner’s familiarity with the three elements before the meeting. Finally, the Court found sufficient collaboration between Berardi and Ragner based on the information exchanged at the meeting, including Ragner’s prototype, confidential documents and verbal explanations about alternative hose designs.

The Federal Circuit dismissed Blue Gentian’s argument that claim construction was needed before analyzing Ragner’s contribution because Blue Gentian did not identify a dispute [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS