You searched for Patent | Page 82 of 164

Federal Circuit Leaves Controversial Noerr-Pennington Trial Court Decision Untouched

by Lisa A. Peterson and McDermott Will & Schulte | Jan 8, 2020 | Antitrust, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied counterclaim plaintiff’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with respect to its decision that the counterclaim plaintiff was estopped from bringing antitrust counterclaims in a patent infringement suit. Intellectual Ventures 1, LLC v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 18-1367 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 11, 2019) (per curium). In its decision, the Federal Circuit determined that the counterclaim plaintiff could not invoke Tuttle v. Arlington County School Board (4th Cir. 1999) to save its counterclaim and left unaddressed the trial court’s decision with respect to the scope of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which was an alternative trial court basis for dismissal of Capital One’s counterclaim.

In its prior decision applying Fourth Circuit law, the Federal Circuit determined that Capital One, the counterclaim plaintiff, could not bring an antitrust counterclaim against Intellectual Ventures based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Intellectual Ventures 1, LLC v. Capital One Financial Corporation, (IP Update, Vol. 22, No. 10). In that decision, the Court reviewed Capital One’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of its counterclaims against a prior litigated case in which Capital One’s identical antitrust counterclaim had been denied by the trial court. In bringing its initial appeal, Capital One argued that the antitrust issues related to market definition and Intellectual Ventures’ market power in the initial case were different from the market definition and Intellectual Ventures’ market power issues in the instant case. In its prior decision, the Federal Circuit disagreed and held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied as (1) the issues in the instant case was identical to the issues in the prior case; (2) the issues were actually decided in the prior proceeding; (3) the issues were critical and necessary to the judgment in the prior proceeding; (4) the judgment was valid and final; and (5) Capital One had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues.

(more…)

No Splitting the Die – Federal Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment of Noninfringement

by Rebecca Harker Duttry | Jan 8, 2020 | Patents

A divided panel decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment of noninfringement, finding no disputed issues of material fact to preclude summary judgement. Plastic Omnium Advanced v. Donghee America, Inc., Case No. 2018-2087 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 21, 2019) (Reyna, J) (Clevenger, J, dissenting).

Plastic Omnium filed suit against Donghee for patent infringement of patents generally relating to manufacturing plastic fuel tanks formed by blow molding. A portion of this process, as claimed, requires “cutting and opening an extruded parison of closed cross section.” The primary dispute on appeal is the meaning of the claim term “parison.” In its claim construction order, the district court found the patentee had acted as its own lexicographer, defining the key disputed term “parison” as “referring to a plastic tube with a closed cross section that is shaped by—and has reached the end of—a die and is split either immediately upon exiting the die or at some point thereafter.” Following claim construction, the district court granted Donghee’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to the asserted claims. Plastic Omnium appeals the grant of summary judgment under both literally infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

(more…)

Slipping Through the Cracks of the § 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor

by McDermott Will & Schulte | Jan 8, 2020 | Life Sciences, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the majority of the batches of an accused biosimilar manufactured by Hospira were not protected by the Safe Harbor exemption of § 271(e)(1), and that patent infringement damages were not unreasonable, notwithstanding that none of the accused product had been sold. Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., Case Nos. 19-1067; -1102 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 16, 2019)(Moore, J.).

EPO is a glycoprotein that regulates red blood cell development. Recombinant versions of EPO are used to treat anemia. One example is Amgen’s product Epogen. In 2014, Hospira submitted a Biologics License Application (BLA) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting approval for its EPO biosimilar. Amgen then sued Hospira for infringement of its patent directed to methods of producing EPO isoforms and its patent directed to recombinant cells producing EPO at certain rates. Specifically, Amgen asserted that 21 pre-approval batches of EPO manufactured by Hospira infringed various claims of these patents.

Hospira appealed.

(more…)

Garage Door Opener Dispute Highlights Importance of Disavowal

by McDermott Will & Schulte | Jan 8, 2020 | Patents

In a pair of opinions, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed appeals arising out of the Chamberlain Group and One World Technologies’ patent infringement dispute concerning garage door opener technology. In the first appeal of a limited exclusion order issued by the USITC, the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the USITC’s determination of infringement after finding that it was premised on an incorrect claim construction. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No. 18-2191 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 12, 2019) (Lourie, J.). In the second appeal, the Court held the PTAB’s finding that the challenged claims were anticipated was supported by substantial evidence. Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., Case No. 18-2112 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 17, 2019) (Hughes, J.).

The Chamberlain Group asserted various garage door opener technology patents against One World, including a patent directed to “an interactive learn mode” that assists users in installation and operation of a garage door opener.

(more…)

PTAB Issues Updated Trial Practice Guide: Yearly Updates Expected

by Paul Devinsky | Jan 3, 2020 | Uncategorized

On November 20, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued updated guidance for trial procedures in inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) proceedings at the US Patent and Trademark Office in the new edition of the Trial Practice Guide.

For easier reading and greater consistency, the new edition incorporates the prior updates released in August 2018 (IP Update, Vol. 21, No. 9) and July 2019 (IP Update, Vol. 22, No.8) into the original August 2012 Practice Guide.

The new edition provides updated guidance on the impact of SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu on the institution of trial. The new guide also replaces the prior “observations” practice with procedures for a more fulsome sur-reply. In addition, the PTAB has provided more opportunities to contact the PTAB to request an initial conference call, and it has updated the way word counts apply to specific filings. The PTAB has also updated the expected scheduling order for derivation proceedings and the default protective order.

Supreme Court: PTO Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees in District Court Appeals

by Paul Devinsky | Jan 2, 2020 | Patents

PATENTS / PTO ATTORNEY’S FEES

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to a district court from an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under 35 USC § 145. Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., Case No. 18-801 (Supr. Ct. Dec. 11, 2019) (Sotomayor, Justice).

The question posed in this case was:

[W]hether such “expenses” [in § 145 proceedings] include the salaries of attorney and paralegal employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

The answer was a resounding “no.”

(more…)

Seventh Circuit Formally Adopts Octane Fitness Standard for Trademark Cases

by Katie Bukrinsky | Jan 2, 2020 | Trademarks

TRADEMARKS / ATTORNEY’S FEE AWARD

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit officially joined its sister circuits in holding that the Supreme Court standard for awarding attorney’s fees in patent cases, set forth in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., was equally applicable to attorney’s fees claims under the Lanham Act. In doing so, the Seventh Circuit overruled its prior holding that a plaintiff’s claims were only “exceptional” under the Lanham Act if they constituted an abuse of process. LHO Chicago River, LLC v. Perillo, Case. No. 19-1848 (7th Cir. Nov. 8, 2019) (Manion, J).

(more…)