Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) too narrowly read its rules limiting reply briefs in an inter partes review (IPR) to preclude a petitioner’s argument as a “new theory of unpatentability,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Board abused its discretion by not considering petitioner’s arguments. Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp., Case Nos. 18-2382, -2383 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2020) (Plager, J.).
Addressing a jury verdict of invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in allowing trial testimony regarding obviousness from a lay witness, and remanded for a new trial. HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC, Case No. 19-1649 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2020) (Moore, J).
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal, finding that a patent license implicitly licensed all parents and continuations that disclosed the same invention as the explicitly licensed patent. Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. 19-1264 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2020) (Lourie, J).
In an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that although the PTAB erred by instituting review based on a ground not advanced in the petition, the PTAB correctly found the patent at issue was invalid and affirmed the final written decision. Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, Case No. 19-1177 (Fed. Cir., Jan. 30, 2020) (Prost, C.J.).
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit imposed limits on what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is authorized to do by statute when dealing with challenged claims in an inter partes review (IPR) that it finds to be too indefinite to apply prior art. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., Case Nos. 19-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) (Bryson, J).
Addressing a panel decision that affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding denying institution of an inter partes review (IPR) after an earlier partial institution decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied both a panel rehearing and a rehearing en banc over a dissent from Judge Newman. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Case Nos. 19-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir. January 13, 2020) (Newman, J, dissenting).
Addressing the issue of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that a patent was invalid based on inherency because the claim limitation was necessarily present in the prior art. Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Case Nos. 19-1329, -1367 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2020) (Lourie, J).
The patent at-issue is directed to premixed pharmaceutical compositions of dexmedetomidine that do not require reconstitution or dilution prior to administration and remains stable and active after prolonged storage. Hospira makes and sells dexmedetomidine products, including a ready-to-use product called Precedex Premix covered by the patent at-issue. Fresenius filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market a generic ready-to-use dexmedetomidine product. Hospira brought suit alleging infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
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.
In a divided panel decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a merger clause in the parties’ settlement agreement did not extinguish a prior covenant not to sue. Molon Motor & Coil Corp. v. Nidec Motor Corp., Case No. 19-1071 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2020) (Lourie, J) (Reyna, J, dissenting).
In 2004, Molon sued Nidec’s predecessor, Merkle-Korff, for infringement of Molon’s patent. In response, Merkle-Korff filed declaratory judgment counterclaims against two other Molon patents, seeking declarations of invalidity and non-infringement. Molon subsequently offered Merkle-Korff a covenant not to sue (2006 covenant) on the counterclaim patents. The covenant provided a unilateral non-exclusive license covering products existing at the time with no limits to specific markets.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expanded the Markush doctrine, determining that the claim language “comprising . . . [at least] . . . a group consisting of . . .” absent some basis or extrinsic evidence for limiting the group, such a group could capture an alleged infringement having an additional component present, as long as the additional component is “functionally similar” to the component identified in the Markush group limitation. ,Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC, Case No. 18-2414 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2020) (Lourie, J).
Subscribe
