The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the US Court of Federal Claims attorneys’ fees award for patent infringement by the United States solely based on its actions during litigation. Hitkansut LLC, Acceledyne Technologies, LTD, LLC v. United States, Case No. 19-1884 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2020) (Prost, CJ).
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.).
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees under § 285, finding that a defendant is not a “prevailing party” for purposes of collecting attorneys’ fees where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its case without prejudice and there was no final court decision designating either litigant as the prevailing party. O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. v. Timney Triggers, LLC, Case No. 19-1134 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2020) (Hughes, J.).
Declining to extend the public-use bar to third-party commercial uses of secret processes, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment ruling that found a patent invalid under the “known or used by others,” “on-sale” and “public-use” bars of 35 U.S.C. § 102. BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co. et al., Case No. 19-1243 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020) (Lourie, J.).
BASF owns a patent on a process for preparing certain polymers. The claimed polymerization process allows easy removal of “sticky” polymers from walls of the tubular reaction vessel by including a conical taper with specific dimensions at the bottom of the vessel. BASF filed a patent infringement suit against SNF, who in turn alleged that the prior art “Sanwet” process invalidated the patent. The Sanwet process was developed in Japan by Sanyo and licensed to third-party Celanese for use in the US prior to the patent’s critical date. Sanyo provided substantial technical support to help Celanese with the process. Celanese was required to keep the Sanwet process confidential and could only disclose information to employees on a need-to-know basis. Employees were also required to sign confidentiality agreements.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s denial of attorney’s fees, finding that voluntary dismissal with prejudice constituted a final judgment for the purposes of FRCP Rule 54(d) under Ninth Circuit law. Keith Mfg., Co. v. Butterfield, Case No. 19-1136 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020) (Hughes, J.).
The Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision invalidating the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA), a 1990 statute intended to provide copyright owners with the power to sue a US state government for infringement, and held that states cannot be sued for copyright infringement. Allen v. Cooper, Case No. 18-877 (Supr. Ct. Mar. 23, 2020) (Kagan, Justice) (Thomas, Justice, concurring) (Breyer and Ginsburg, Justices, concurring).
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss a first-filed declaratory judgment complaint, finding that equitable considerations warranted departure from the first-to-file rule. Communications Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC, Case No. 19-1672 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2020) (O’Malley, J.).
Notwithstanding the jurisdictional nature of the time bar under § 315(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a party may waive a time bar argument if it failed to raise the issue with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) during the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Acoustic Tech. Inc. v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc., Case No. 19-1061 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020) (Reyna, J.).
Addressing the propriety of the trial court’s jury instruction regarding willful infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that descriptors such as “egregious behavior” and whether an infringer is “worthy of punishment” are inappropriate for a jury instruction on willful patent infringement, but ultimately found that the instruction was not legally erroneous. Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc., Case Nos. 2018-2215, 2018-2254 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2020) (Dyk, J.) (Reyna, J. concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part).
Eko Brands asserted a claim of patent infringement against Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises (ARM). Based on the district court’s claim construction, ARM stipulated to infringement, and the case went to trial on the issue of damages.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to deter serial patent filers’ future “abusive litigation.” Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies v. Health in Motion LLC, DBA Inspire Fitness, Leisure Fitness Equipment LLC, Case No. 18-2393 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2019) (Wallach, J.).
Blackbird sued Health in Motion and Leisure Fitness (HIM) for infringing a patent directed to exercise equipment that includes a housing with a structural surface defining an arcuate path and multiple pairs of pulleys positioned along the arcuate path. Shortly after filing the case, Blackbird offered to settle for $80,000. HIM rejected the offer, stating that they believed that Blackbird would be ordered to pay their attorneys’ fees, and countered with a settlement offer that included Blackbird paying HIM $120,000. Over the course of the next year, Blackbird continued to negotiate until it eventually offered HIM a license to the patent for zero dollars. HIM declined.
Subscribe
