IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Patents
Subscribe to Patents's Posts

In the Weeds? Humira “Patent Thicket” Isn’t an Antitrust Violation

by | Aug 11, 2022 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that welfare benefit plans that bought the drug Humira did not have valid antitrust claims against the patent owner. The Court found that amassing patents by itself is not enough to give rise to an antitrust claim, and that the welfare benefit plans would need to prove that the patents were invalid. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2402 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2022) (Easterbrook, Wood, Kirsch, JJ.)

AbbVie owns a patent covering Humira, which is a drug used to treat arthritic and inflammatory diseases. Humira is not covered by the Hatch-Waxman Act because it is a biologic drug, rather than a synthetic drug. Biologics are covered by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), under which a competitor must ask the US Food and Drug Administration for permission to sell a “biosimilar” drug based on certain guidelines. From the first sale of the original drug, the competitor must wait 12 years to enter the market. If the original drug seller believes that a patent blocks competition and initiates litigation, the competitor is still free to sell its biosimilar drug. The competitor sells at risk of an adverse outcome in the litigation.

The original Humira patent expired in 2016, but AbbVie obtained 132 additional patents related to the drug. After the 12-year BPCIA requirement passed, none of AbbVie’s competitors chose to launch a biosimilar. Instead, competitors settled with AbbVie on terms to enter the US market in 2023. In exchange, AbbVie agreed that enforcement of all 132 of its patents would end in 2023 even if they were not set to expire.

Welfare benefit plans that pay for Humira on behalf of covered beneficiaries accused AbbVie of violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The payors argued that AbbVie’s settlements with potential competitors established a conspiracy that restrained competition in violation of Section 1, and that AbbVie’s “patent thicket” allowed AbbVie to reap unlawful monopoly profits from Humira after expiration of the original patent in violation of Section 2. The district court dismissed the complaint. The payors appealed.

The issue on appeal with respect to Section 2 was whether the payors had to prove that all of AbbVie’s Humira-related patents were invalid. Under the Walker Process antitrust doctrine, a party may be liable for an antitrust violation if it knowingly asserts a fraudulently procured patent in an attempt to monopolize a market. The payors did not argue that all 132 of AbbVie’s patents were fraudulent. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that because the patent laws do not set a cap on the number of patents a person (or company) can hold, the payors would need to prove that each of AbbVie’s 132 Humira-related patents were invalid to succeed in showing a violation under Section 2. Not only did the payors fail to prove that all 132 patents were invalid, but they did not even offer to do so. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Argument Forfeit in Remand Notwithstanding Modified Claim Construction

by | Aug 4, 2022 |

In the second appeal arising from an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that its revised claim construction from the first appeal did not permit the patent challenger to raise a new argument in a remand proceeding at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) since the patent owner’s response in the original proceeding had sufficiently put the challenger on notice of the claim construction that was adopted in the first appeal. Wireless Protocol Innovations, Inc. v. TCT Mobile, Inc., Case No. 21-2112 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2022) (Prost, Taranto, Chen, JJ.)

Wireless Protocol Innovations (WPI) owns a patent related to controlling data flow in a point-to-multipoint communications system. WPI filed a district court complaint in 2015 asserting the patent against TCT. In response, TCT filed IPR petitions challenging certain claims of the patent. The petition presented three grounds of unpatentability, one of which relied on a reference by Sen. TCT’s petition did not propose constructions for any claim terms and argued that Sen taught the “grant pending absent state” limitation of the challenged patent. WPI argued that Sen failed to disclose “transitioning” between the “grant pending absent” and “grant pending” states after a “subsequent bandwidth grant,” as required by the claims. In its reply, TCT maintained that Sen taught the limitation but never argued that Sen could be readily modified to include a “grant pending absent state.” The Board found all of the challenged claims to be unpatentable on two grounds, one of which relied on Sen. WPI appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s decision with respect to the first ground, vacated the Board’s decision relying on Sen because the Board applied a flawed claim construction of “grant pending absent state,” and remanded the IPR for the Board to reconsider in view of the Court’s new claim construction. The Court also specifically declined to “prejudge what arguments TCT has properly preserved or should now be permitted to advance or what determinations as to Sen, Rydnell, and admitted prior art are supported by the evidence.”

On remand, the Board allowed the parties to submit additional briefing and expert testimony limited to the issue of whether Sen described operating a consumer premises equipment (CPE) in a “grant pending absent state” as interpreted by the Federal Circuit. TCT maintained its argument that Sen disclosed a grant pending absent state and argued for the first time that, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to modify Sen to meet the limitation. The Board issued a remand decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable. Again, WPI appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that TCT had failed to preserve its new claim construction and obviousness argument and that “failure to timely assert a right or raise an argument constitutes forfeiture.” The Court explained that TCT acknowledged that it understood, prior to its reply, that WPI sought to distinguish the claimed “grant pending absent state” from Sen because Sen involved some [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Claim Construction Error Fuels Remand

by | Aug 4, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s noninfringement decision, finding that the district court improperly construed the asserted claims as requiring a dual-fuel system. Ethanol Boosting Sys., LLC v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 21-1949 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2022) (Moore, Hughes, JJ.) (Newman, J., dissenting) (non-precedential).

Ethanol Boosting Systems (EBS) filed suit against Ford for infringement of three patents relating to fuel management systems for spark ignition engines that include both a direct injection and a port fuel injection fueling system. During claim construction, Ford argued that the direct injection fuel system required “a fuel that contains an anti-knock agent . . . that is different from the fuel used for port injection.” The district court agreed with Ford, relying on the patents’ titles, figures and background sections. The district court noted that no figures depicted a single fuel engine, and that the specification repeatedly referenced direct injection of a non-gasoline fuel, such as ethanol, into a gasoline engine. The district court acknowledged that the specification made a singular reference to a 100% ethanol embodiment but found that this disclosure did not teach a single fuel engine and that it was in the context of a dual-fuel engine. In view of this construction, the parties stipulated to judgment of noninfringement. EBS appealed.

Reviewing claim construction de novo, the Federal Circuit found that nothing in the asserted claim language required the use of different fuels in the direct-injection and port-injection systems. The Court also found that the specification imposed no such requirement, relying on one embodiment that disclosed “100% of the fuel . . . come[s] from ethanol with a smaller fraction being port injected.” The Court rejected Ford’s citation to multiple passages requiring the use of two fuels, finding that those statements could not describe the invention as a whole because they did not describe all embodiments (namely, the aforementioned 100% ethanol embodiment). Ford also cited to an earlier Federal Circuit decision in which family members of the asserted patents were construed to require dual fuels. The Court disagreed, concluding that those patents had different specifications that did not disclose the 100% ethanol embodiment. The Court finally turned to the prosecution history of a different patent family member that has the same specification as the asserted patents. In that application’s prosecution history, the patent holder distinguished a prior art reference on the ground that it only used a single fuel type. The Court declined to import such a limitation from a statement made in that prosecution history because it did not reflect the claim language. The Court concluded that the district court erred in construing the claims to require a dual-fuel system and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Judge Newman issued a stinging dissent, taking the panel majority to task for departing from what she regarded as settled claim construction law. She agreed with the district court that the 100% ethanol example, considered in context, was “merely discussing how this [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Fee Award Appropriate for Trying to Refresh and Replay Case

by | Aug 4, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld an attorneys’ fees award after the patent owner brought successive patent infringement suits attempting “to refile to wipe the slate clean” after the first court was poised to issue an adverse merits ruling. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Netflix Streaming Services, Inc., Case Nos. 21-1484; -1485; -1518; -1519 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2022) (Newman, Chen, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part).

Realtime brought three patent infringement suits against Netflix alleging infringement of six different patents and the same accused products. Realtime first sued in Delaware, and Netflix moved to transfer to California for convenience (which Realtime vehemently opposed as an unfair burden) and to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that four of the six patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an ineligible abstract idea. After briefing, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation finding the four patents ineligible under § 101. The court also denied the motion to transfer. Meanwhile, Netflix filed corresponding petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of the asserted patents, all of which were instituted by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board. Realtime moved to amend its complaint—for support pointing to five related patents that were subsequently found invalid under § 101 by the same judge—then voluntarily dismissed the Delaware action before the district court judge could rule on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

The very next day, Realtime filed two new suits against Netflix in California asserting the same six patents, divvying up the four § 101-challenged patents as separate from the other two. Netflix moved to transfer both cases back to Delaware and moved for attorneys’ fees. Realtime opposed, this time arguing that California was more convenient than Delaware. However, before the California court could rule on the motion to dismiss, Realtime again voluntarily dismissed the California actions without prejudice.

Netflix renewed its motion for attorneys’ fees for the California actions, IPRs and related Delaware action. The district court awarded attorneys’ fees for the California actions under § 285 and, in the alternative, the court’s equitable powers. The district court declined to award attorneys’ fees for the related actions, IPRs or costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d). Realtime appealed the fee award, and Netflix cross-appealed the denial of fees for related proceedings.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in awarding fees pursuant to equitable powers or in denying fees for related proceedings. Because the district court’s “inherent power to impose sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees is not a substantive patent question,” the Federal Circuit considered the issue under the Ninth Circuit’s framework that “the court must find that the sanctioned behavior ‘constituted or was tantamount to bad faith.’” As for fees under § 285, “a district court ‘may award’ attorneys’ fees to ‘the prevailing party’ in ‘exceptional cases’”—an analysis unique to patent law and therefore governed by Federal Circuit precedent.

In affirming the award of fees, the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

New WDTX Order Shakes Up Initial Judge Assignments

by | Jul 28, 2022 |

A recent order from Chief Judge Garcia of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX) changes how judges are initially assigned to cases filed in its Waco Division. As of July 25, 2022, patent cases filed in the Waco Division shall be randomly assigned to one of 12 judges. The list includes at least one judge from each of the district’s seven divisions. The order states that the new practice is due to “consideration of the volume of new patent cases assigned to the Waco Division, and in an effort to equitably distribute those cases.”

It’s no secret that the Waco Division has been a magnet for patent lawsuits in the last four years. The only judge in Waco—Judge Alan D. Albright—has presided over more than 2,500 patent cases since September 2018. Those 2,500 patent cases account for about 17% of all patent cases filed nationally in district courts in that timeframe. Plaintiffs’ preference to file in Waco is due in part to Judge Albright’s knowledge of patent cases, his interest in patent cases and his promulgation of local patent rules aiming for a predictable and quick path to trial.

Although Waco cases may now initially be assigned to other judges, whether they choose to keep the assignments remains to be seen. The recent order contains a footnote stating that its previous order for assigning judges “remains in full force and effect.” That previous order allows judges to reassign any case “by mutual consent.” (See Item XVIII(a).) Thus, judges may self-select out of these cases. A large criminal docket is one example of why a judge might self-select out of a patent case.

Even if another judge is assigned and decides to keep a Waco patent case, it remains to be seen whether they will adopt Judge Albright’s local patent rules. Judge Albright has put extensive efforts into the local rules, including procedures related to discovery disputes, pre-Markman discovery, Markman hearings, infringement and invalidity contentions, US Patent & Trademark Office inter partes review effects and more. His cases have averaged about eight months to a Markman hearing and about 24 months to trial. Other judges may decide to make use of that framework to save time and effort or to avoid inconsistencies within the division.

Stay tuned for updates as this new assignment practice unfolds and more patent cases are assigned.



read more

Court to Counsel: Be Frivolous at Your Own Risk

by | Jul 28, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may “award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee” under the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 if an appeal is frivolous as filed or as argued. In a non-precedential decision, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part a party’s motion for sanctions and request to hold the opposing party’s counsel jointly and severally liable. Pop Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc., Case No. 21-2174 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2022) (Moore, C.J.; Newman, Stoll, JJ.) (per curiam). (Newman, J., dissenting). The Court granted attorneys’ fees and double costs, although it lowered the requested amount for attorneys’ fees.

Pop Top owns a patent describing methods and systems related to enabling highlighter functionality on web pages. The patent’s claim requires an “internet document [that] includes code for invoking a highlighting service to operate with the internet document.” Pop Top alleged that Kobo’s e-books on an app infringed as they are “highlightable” and “include code.” Kobo explained that all highlighting-related code was in the app, not the e-books, an assertion supported by a declaration from its chief technology officer. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement.

Pop Top appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not resolving the parties’ alleged claim construction dispute regarding the limitation “code for invoking,” and by deciding that Pop Top’s citation of the Kobo declaration and the infringement contentions (for the first time on appeal) was insufficient evidence of infringement to survive summary judgment.

An appeal is frivolous as filed if “the judgment by the tribunal below was so plainly correct and the legal authority contrary to appellant’s position was so clear that there really is no appealable issue.” The Federal Circuit decided that the appeal was frivolous as filed, explaining that there was no reasonable basis to appeal the summary judgment. The district court had determined that Pop Top offered “no evidence whatsoever” that the e-books included “code for invoking a highlighting service” but relied solely on the Kobo declaration, which stated that the app, not the e-books, contained the highlighting functionality.

An appeal is frivolous as argued if “the appellant engages in misconduct in arguing the appeal.” The Federal Circuit decided that Pop Top’s appeal was frivolous as argued because it “blatantly misconstrue[d] Kobo’s position” when arguing disputed scope for “code for invoking.” Kobo explained that there was no dispute; even under Pop Top’s construction, there was no infringement because the e-books do not contain code invoking the highlighting service. Pop Top further compounded its misconduct in arguing that it presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment, failing to explain how any cited evidence, such as the Kobo declaration, showed that Kobo’s e-books contain code related to highlighting.

The Federal Circuit explained that it may hold that counsel be jointly and severally liable for a sanctions award if “an appeal is frivolous due to the nature of the advocacy in support of it.” Because Pop Top’s appeal was frivolous “entirely because of the baseless [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Standard Techniques Applied in Standard Way to Observe Natural Phenomena? Not Patent Eligible

by | Jul 28, 2022 |

In what may be another blow to diagnostic patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the patent ineligibility of claims that it held to be directed to detecting natural phenomena by conventional techniques. CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., Case No. 2022-1027 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2022) (Lourie, Bryson, Hughes, JJ.)

CareDx is the exclusive licensee of three Stanford University patents directed to diagnosing or predicting organ transplant status by using methods to detect a donor’s cell-free DNA (cfDNA). When an organ transplant is rejected, the recipient’s body destroys the donor cells, releasing cfDNA from the donated organ’s dying cells into the blood. Detecting the naturally increased levels of donor cfDNA (due to the deteriorating organ condition) can be used to diagnose the likelihood of an organ transplant rejection.

The representative claims were summarized as having four steps for detecting a donor’s cfDNA in a transplant recipient:

  1. “Obtaining” or “providing” a “sample” from the recipient that contains cfDNA
  2. “Genotyping” the transplant donor and/or recipient to develop “polymorphism” or “SNP” “profiles”
  3. “Sequencing” the cfDNA from the sample using “multiplex” or “high-throughput” sequencing, or performing “digital PCR”
  4. “Determining” or “quantifying” the amount of donor cfDNA.

CareDx filed two lawsuits, one alleging that Natera’s kidney transplant rejection test infringed the patents, and another alleging that Eurofins Viracor’s various organ transplant rejection tests infringed one of the patents. Natera and Eurofins moved to dismiss the complaints for failing to state a claim because of a lack of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The magistrate judge who reviewed the motions recommended that they be denied, finding that the claims were a “purportedly new, unconventional combination of steps” to detect natural phenomena. Although the recommendation was vacated with regard to Natera because the complaint was amended, the district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation as to Eurofins with modified reasoning that the patent “specifications raise doubts about the patents’ validity” by suggesting that the steps were neither new nor unconventional. Still, the district court was wary of ruling prematurely and denied the motion so that the parties could conduct discovery to develop the record on what was considered conventional in the art.

Following expert discovery relating to § 101 eligibility, Natera and Eurofins moved for summary judgment on patent ineligibility. The district court denied summary judgment, citing a factual dispute as to the conventionality of the techniques for performing the claimed methods. Natera and Eurofins moved for certification of interlocutory appeals of the district court’s denial. After conferring with the parties, the district court agreed to reconsider its decision in view of case law raised in the certification motion. After reconsideration, the district court granted the summary judgment motions of ineligibility, finding that the asserted claims were directed to the detection of natural phenomena—specifically, the presence of donor cfDNA in a transplant recipient and the correlation between donor cfDNA and transplant rejection—and concluding that based on the specification’s many admissions, the claims recited only conventional techniques.

CareDx appealed, arguing [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTO Proposes Standardization of the Patent Term Adjustment Statement Regarding Information Disclosure Statements

by | Jul 21, 2022 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced on July 12, 2022, that it intends to revise the rules pertaining to patent term adjustment to require that the patent term adjustment statement regarding information disclosure statements (IDS) be submitted on a PTO form. The PTO believes that the use of the form will streamline prosecution and be more accurate and efficient by eliminating the need for a manual review of the patent term adjustment statement.

The regulations in 37 CFR 1.704(c)(1) through (14) establish the circumstances that constitute an applicant’s failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application and the resulting reduction of any patent term adjustment. 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) also provides a safe harbor for filing IDS. Filing only an IDS in compliance with §§ 1.97 and 1.98 or a request for continued examination with only a compliant IDS is not considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(6), (8), (9) or (10) if it is accompanied by the required statement. The statement required to accompany the paper or request for continued examination must affirm that each item of information contained in the IDS meets one of the following requirements:

  • It was first cited in any communication from a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international application or from the PTO, and this communication was not received by any individual designated in § 1.56(c) more than 30 days prior to the filing of the IDS.
  • It is a communication that was issued by a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international application or by the PTO, and this communication was not received by any individual designated in § 1.56(c) more than 30 days prior to the filing of the IDS.

The PTO proposes adding new paragraph (d)(3) to 37 CFR 1.704(d), which requires filers to submit the patent term adjustment statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) on a form PTO/SB/133 to derive the safe harbor benefit under 37 CFR 1.704(d). Form PTO/SB/133 includes the required statement described above. Filers who submit a 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) patent term adjustment statement without using the form PTO/SB/133 and filers who submit the form PTO/SB/133 with any modification to the patent term adjustment statement will not receive the benefit of the safe harbor under 37 CFR 1.704(d). Under such circumstances, the IDS or the request for continued examination, with no submission other than an IDS, will be treated as unaccompanied by a patent term adjustment statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1).

Comments on the proposed rule must be received by September 12, 2022, to ensure consideration.



read more

Clearly, the Disclosure Was an Error

by | Jul 21, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) finding that claimed subject matter was not disclosed in asserted prior art where the prior art reference contained an “obvious error of a typographical or similar nature that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” even though the error went unrecognized and uncorrected for 20 years until an expert conducted an extensive analysis. LG Electronics Inc. v. ImmerVision, Inc., Case Nos. 21-2037; -2038 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 11, 2022) (Stoll, Newman, Cunningham, JJ.) (Newman, J., dissenting)

The issue before the Federal Circuit was whether an error in the prior art that remained uncorrected in the public domain for 20 years and took an expert many hours of analysis to uncover, was an obvious error that would meet the standard set in the 1970 Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) case In re Yale. Since the CCPA is a predecessor court to the Federal Circuit, its decisions are mandatory authority. Under the Yale standard, “where a prior art reference includes an obvious error of a typographical or similar nature that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art who would mentally disregard the errant information as a misprint or mentally substitute it for the correct information, the errant information cannot be said to disclose subject matter. . . . The remainder of the reference would remain pertinent prior art disclosure.”

The patent at issue pertains to capturing and displaying panoramic images using an objective lens. The claims require a certain image point distribution function and that the objective lens “compresses the center of the image and the edges of the image and expands an intermediate zone of the image located between the center and the edges of the image.”

LG’s expert reconstructed a lens depicted in an embodiment of the asserted prior art using information found in Table 5 of the reference. Based on this reconstruction, LG argued that certain limitations of the claims at issue were found in a prior art patent to Tada, and thus the claims at issue were obvious.

ImmerVision had its own expert attempt to create the same lens model based on the same information. However, ImmerVision’s expert noticed something was wrong, as the resulting output image from the lens was distorted. Upon further investigation, ImmerVision’s expert discovered that the disclosure in Tada Table 5, on which LG’s expert relied, was intended to correspond to a different embodiment. The inconsistency was caused by a transcription error from the Japanese priority application in terms of the embodiment associated with Table 5. It was undisputed that when the correct values were used, the subject matter was not disclosed.

The question on appeal was whether the Board correctly held that the error in Tada would have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art such that the person would have disregarded the disclosure or corrected the error to meet the Yale standard. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Threat of ITC Exclusion Order Is Too Speculative to Constitute Irreparable Harm

by | Jul 21, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by a federal district court denying a defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin a parallel International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation against it. The Federal Circuit agreed that the defendant’s alleged irreparable harm (a “cloud” over its business) was too conclusory and speculative to support relief. Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales Dis Ais USA LLC, Case No. 21-2106 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2022) (Moore, C.J., Dyk, Chen, JJ)

Koninklijke filed a complaint at the ITC requesting a Section 337 investigation based on alleged infringement by Thales of four patents designated essential to the 3G and 4G telecommunications standards. Koninklijke simultaneously filed a parallel district court action against Thales in the Delaware district court based on those four patents. At the district court, Thales moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Koninklijke from pursuing an exclusion order at the ITC because of an alleged breach of contract. The district court denied that motion, and Thales appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Meanwhile, the ITC investigation continued, and the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an initial determination finding no violation of Section 337 with respect to any of the four patents. Subsequently, the Federal Circuit held oral arguments on the district court appeal, during which the judges questioned whether there could be irreparable harm if the ITC were to adopt the ALJ’s determination and consequently not issue an exclusion order. Thales argued that the threat of an exclusion order had left a “cloud” over its business and cited customer concerns that Thales might not be able to deliver products in the future. The ITC subsequently affirmed the ALJ’s finding of no violation and terminated the investigation without issuing any exclusion order.

A week later, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction motion. The Court held that Thales had failed to meet its burden to establish irreparable harm because it had not presented any evidence that it had actually lost any customers, that any customers had delayed purchases or that it had struggled to gain new customers because of the threat from the ITC investigation. The Court also found that the cloud over Thales’ business and the potential loss of business were too speculative to justify a preliminary injunction.

Practice Note: While the ITC investigation was ongoing, Thales filed a civil action in France against Koninklijke—a fellow European company—alleging that Koninklijke’s attempt to obtain injunctive relief in the United States for standard essential patents constituted an anti-competitive act that violated French civil law. Thales sought EUR 13.5 million in damages for the legal fees that it had incurred in defending the ITC investigation.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES