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

“Gradual” and “Continuous” Includes Step-Wise

by | Nov 19, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a priority decision in favor of the senior party, upholding a claim construction that was based upon a verbatim definition set forth in the patent specification of the application from which the count in interference was copied. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. University of Wyoming Research Corp., Case No. 19-1530 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2020) (Schall, J.) (Newman, J., dissenting).

Wyoming Research provoked a patent interference proceeding by copying into its pending application a claim from Chevron’s pending patent application. Under the now-discontinued interference statute, the patent for an invention claimed by more than one party was awarded to the first-to-invent party. If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board)determined there was an interference in fact—that is, two patent applications claimed the same subject matter—then the Board could proceed to determine priority of inventorship. A finding of interference in fact required the copying party’s patent specification to contain adequate written description and enablement to support the copied claim.

The copied claim was directed to a method of fractioning asphaltenes from crude oil. The technology used a mobile phase into which an alkane solvent was introduced and its concentration “gradually and continuously” changed over time, and the resulting eluted fractions were analyzed. The disputed claim limitation was: “gradually and continuously changing the alkane mobile phase solvent to a final mobile phase solvent.”

Chevron argued that “gradually and continuously changing” referred to the act of feeding alkane mobile phase solvent into the inlet of the column. Relying on intrinsic evidence, the Board instead adopted Wyoming’s construction, concluding that the limitation’s “gradually and continuously changing” referred to the change of solvents in the column and not to changes at the inlet to the column. The distinction was important because at the inlet, the Wyoming invention introduced solvent in a step-wise manner. The parties agreed that Wyoming’s specification supported only the construction adopted by Board, and Wyoming was declared to be the senior party for the priority contest.

Because Chevron had filed a priority statement that indicated that its earliest corroborated conception coupled with diligence date was later than Wyoming’s priority date, the Board determined that Chevron was unable to prevail on priority and entered judgment in favor of Wyoming. Chevron appealed.

On appeal, Chevron argued that the Board’s construction was inconsistent with Chevron’s patent specification. Chevron contended that its application disclosed that the solvent was “gradually and continuously” changed at the column’s inlet and that the Board’s construction rendered the limitation meaningless because it encompassed even “sudden, abrupt immediate solvent switches.”

The Court affirmed the Board’s construction, holding that the broadest reasonable construction of “gradually and continuously changing” did not require a change of solvents at the column inlet. The Court reasoned that the Board’s construction was consistent, and indeed tracked verbatim, with the Chevron application’s express definition of “gradually.” While the Court acknowledged that certain examples in the Chevron application illustrated that one way to implement a “gradual and continuous change” of the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Summary Judgment Foreclosed when There Is More than One Possible Inference from Evidence

by | Nov 19, 2020 |

Reversing a summary judgment ruling that barred a correction of inventorship claim, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, found issues of material fact foreclosed summary judgment and warned that where an issue is a “quintessentially fact-laden one” such as equitable issue involving possible equitable estoppel on inventorship, summary judgement is likely not appropriate.. Ferring B.V. et al. v. Allergan, Inc. et al., Case No. 20-1098 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020) (O’Malley, J.)

From 1998 to 2002, Dr. Seymour Fein worked as a consultant for Ferring Pharmaceuticals to develop a drug that helps regulate the body’s retention of water. That work apparently did not include any obligation by Fein to assign any inventions. As a result, both Ferring and Fein ultimately filed dueling patent applications directed to aspects of the drug and its use. In correspondence that took place while patent prosecution was pending, Fein indicated to Ferring that his application would be directed to a low dose administration route for the drug. Ferring responded that it believed that aspect (i.e., the low dose route) to be disclosed by prior art. Both sides eventually obtained patents, and Fein assigned his patents to Allergan.

In 2012, Ferring filed a state court action for correction of inventorship, seeking to add its researchers to Fein’s patents. Allergan counterclaimed with its own inventorship claim seeking to add Fein to Ferring’s patents, and also asserted an equitable estoppel defense based on the above-noted correspondence between the parties that occurred during patent prosecution. Allergan then moved for summary judgment on its equitable estoppel defense, which was granted. The judge subsequently held a bench trial and rejected Allergan’s inventorship claim. Ferring appealed the summary judgment decision.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected Ferring’s argument that the trial court should not have considered any conduct that preceded issuance of the patents for purposes of equitable estoppel. However, the Federal Circuit held that the trial court’s summary judgment decision had improperly resolved issues of material fact regarding that pre-issuance conduct. According to the Federal Circuit, the pre-issuance discussions did not lead to only one possible inference, but rather were subject to interpretation because the claim scope discussed (low dose administration) did not necessarily match the claim scope ultimately granted. As a result, the Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment decision and remanded to the district court.



read more

Printed Matter Is Patentable If It’s Functional, Not Just Communicative

by | Nov 19, 2020 |

In a tour de force of issues related to the printed matter doctrine, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed various rulings that the patents-in-suit were not infringed, not willfully infringed and invalid as directed to printed matter. Instead, the Court held that there was substantial evidence in the record to support a jury finding of infringement and willfulness, and that the asserted claims were not directed solely to printed matter and thus were patent eligible under 35 USC § 101 (thereby raising a genuine dispute of material fact that precludes summary judgment as to anticipation). C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., Case Nos. 19-1756, -1934 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020) (Reyna, J.)

This dispute began when Bard sued AngioDynamics for infringing three patents directed to identifying a vascular access port that is suitable for power injection, which is a medical procedure requiring injecting fluids into a patient at a high pressure and flow rate. Generally, the identification was accomplished by certain markings on the vascular access port that can be detected during an x-ray scan.

Prior to trial, AngioDynamics moved for summary judgment on patent eligibility, novelty and enablement. This summary judgment motion was initially denied, but the district court sought a report and recommendation prior to trial regarding whether certain limitations relating to radiographic marker images were entitled to patentable weight under the printed matter doctrine. The magistrate judge concluded that the limitations were not entitled to patentable weight, and the district court adopted the recommendation. At trial and at the end of Bard’s case-in-chief, AngioDynamics moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on non-infringement and no willfulness. Ultimately, the district court terminated the trial and granted AngioDynamics’ JMOL motion for non-infringement and no willfulness. The district court further held that the claims were invalid because they were directed to printed matter and were not inventive. Bard appealed, challenging each of the district court’s findings.

In reversing the summary judgment of no infringement, the Federal Circuit explained that Bard’s expert’s reliance on an incorrect understanding of the district court’s claim construction was alone insufficient to grant judgment as a matter of law. Instead, the expert’s misunderstanding went to credibility, and the Court found the record reflected that the expert properly testified that the various claim elements were met under the proper claim constructions. The Court further explained that Bard did not have an affirmative duty to test AngioDynamics products, but rather was entitled to rely on AngioDynamics’ representations to the US Food and Drug Administration and to its customers. With regard to induced infringement, the Court explained that if an alleged infringer instructs its users to use the product in an infringing way, there is sufficient evidence for a jury to find infringement. Because the district count found no inducement based on its erroneous summary judgment of no infringement, that ruling was similarly reversed.

The Federal Circuit also reversed the district court on its summary judgment of no willfulness, concluding that Bard [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Transfer Motions Must Take Top Priority

by | Nov 19, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted an accused infringer’s mandamus petition to transfer a case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California, concluding that the district court “barreled ahead” on the merits before addressing the transfer motion and clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer. In re. Apple, Inc., Case No. 20-135 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2020) (Prost, C.J.) (Moore, J., dissenting). In re. Apple, Inc

In September 2019, Uniloc sued Apple in the Western District of Texas alleging that several Apple products infringed one of Uniloc’s patents. In November 2019, Apple moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California on the basis that it would be clearly more convenient to litigate the case in that district. In January 2020, Apple moved to stay all activity in the case unrelated to its transfer motion pending a decision on that motion. The district court denied the stay motion without explanation. In May 2020, the district court held a hearing on Apple’s transfer motion during which the court stated that it would deny the motion and issue a written order as soon as possible. After the hearing, but before issuing a written order, the court held a Markman hearing, issued its claim construction order, held a discovery hearing and issued a corresponding discovery order. In response to these advances in the case, in June 2020 Apple filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Federal Circuit transfer the case to the Northern District of California. One week after Apple filed its petition, the district court issued its written order denying transfer.

The Federal Circuit granted Apple’s mandamus petition and directed the district court to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The Federal Circuit explained that the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit assesses transfer requests using private and public interest factors. The private interest factors are: “(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” The public interest factors are: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law.” The parties agreed that the third and fourth public interest factors were neutral, but disputed whether the remaining factors weighed for or against transfer.

The Federal Circuit found numerous errors in the district court’s analysis. As to the first private factor (access to sources of proof), the Court found that the district court erred in determining that the location of witnesses weighed in favor of transfer. The Court explained that the “access to proof” factor [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Analogous Art Includes Reference a Skilled Artisan Would Reasonably Consult

by | Nov 19, 2020 |

Addressing the standard for determining whether a prior art reference constitutes analogous art for purposes of an obviousness analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that a reference was not analogous. The Court explained that the Board did not consider the purpose and problems to which the prior art and challenged patent relate. Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, Case No. 20-1104 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2020) (Prost, C.J.)

Pro Stage owns a patent directed to an improved guitar effects pedalboard. Guitar effects pedals are electronic devices that affect the amplified sound of a guitar. The pedals are controlled by foot operation switches in order to leave the user’s hands free to play the instrument. When multiple pedals are used, they must be interconnected by cables, which are typically daisy-chained between each separate pedal. Once interconnected, the pedals are placed on a wooden pedalboard and covered with foam so that the cables are not exposed. This leads to difficulty when swapping or adding new pedals because the foam must be removed from the board and the cables repositioned. Pro Stage’s patent attempts to remedy this issue by elevating one side of the pedalboard from the stage floor and providing a mounting surface and cable connection openings such that cables can pass beneath the mounting surface, as demonstrated by the patent figures shown below.

Donner petitioned for inter partes review of the patent, challenging various claims as obvious under 35 USC §103. Donner asserted three grounds of invalidity, all relying at least in part on the teachings of the Mullen patent. Mullen relates to an improved structure for supporting one or more electrical relays and for providing wiring-channel space for receiving wires connected to the relays in order to connect the relays to various control circuits. As part of its petition, Donner claimed that certain embodiments of Mullen (below), disclose a structure that is analogous to the structure claimed in the challenged patent.

The Board rejected that Donner’s obviousness challenges, finding that Donner did “not put forth any argument or evidence to explain what would have compelled a pedalboard inventor in 1999 or 2000 to consider potential solutions arising from early 1970s-era relay technologies,” notwithstanding arguments, expert and other testimony, and other evidence submitted by Donner to the contrary. Donner appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, explaining the relevant tests to analyze whether a prior art reference is analogous. The two separate tests are (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Federal Circuit Will Not Second-Guess IPR Institution Denials

by | Nov 11, 2020 | ,

In a series of non-precedential orders, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that it lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals on whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board properly decided to deny inter partes review (IPR) petitions based on parallel district court litigation. Cisco Systems Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University, Case Nos. 20-2047, -2049 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2020); Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, Case No. 20-2040 (Oct. 30, 2020); In re: Cisco Systems Inc., Case No. 2020-148 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2020); Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., Case No. 20-2132, -2211, -2212, -2213, 21-1033 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2020).

The 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) created various mechanisms for challenging the validity of issued patents in post-grant proceedings before the US Patent and Trademark Office PTO) by adding transitional covered business method and post-grant review proceedings to existing ex parte re-examination, and expanding and renaming inter partes re-examination to inter partes review (IPR).

Under 35 USC §§ 311, 312, a petition for IPR must identify all real parties in interest, identify and support the prior art grounds for challenges to the claims, and provide “such other information as the Director may require by regulation.” Under 35 USC § 314 and 37 CFR 42.4(a), the Board institutes a trial on behalf of the PTO Director, and a “determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” In deciding whether to institute the trial, the Board considers, at a minimum, whether a petitioner has satisfied the relevant statutory institution standard. Even when a petitioner has satisfied the institution standard, the Director has statutory discretion under 35 USC 314(a) and 324(a) to deny a petition.

In 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee that “the agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion,” and that there is “no mandate to institute review.” The Supreme Court also found that the Director is given broad discretion under 35 USC 315(d) and 325(d) to determine the manner in which “multiple proceedings” before the PTO involving the same patent may proceed, “including providing for stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding.” Subsequent PTO policies and precedential Board decisions set forth factors affecting the case-specific analysis of whether to institute an AIA proceeding, and particularly a follow-on or serial petition, or discretionary denial due to the timing of parallel district court proceedings.

In Cisco v. Ramot, the Board denied Cisco’s petitions to institute IPRs against two patents that Ramot had asserted against it in a district court case. The decisions denying Cisco’s petitions cited the Board’s discretion under 35 USC § 314(a) not to institute review and relied on the factors determining whether efficiency, fairness and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding. Specifically, the Board [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Venue in Hatch-Waxman Cases Limited to District Where ANDA Is Submitted

by | Nov 11, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that in cases brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act, for purposes of determining venue, infringement occurs only in districts where actions related to the submission of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) occur, and not in all locations where future distribution of the generic products specified in the ANDA is contemplated. Valeant Pharmaceuticals North American LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 19-2402 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2020) (O’Malley, J.).

Valeant holds a new drug application for the brand name drug Jublia®, which is used to treat toenail fungal infections. In 2018, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (MPI) executed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Jublia®. MPI sent the ANDA from its West Virginia corporate office to the US Food and Drug Administration, located in White Oak, Maryland. The ANDA included a Paragraph IV certification that the Orange-Book-listed patents for Jublia® were invalid, unenforceable or would not be infringed by the ANDA product. After the ANDA was filed, Valeant filed suit in the District of New Jersey against MPI, Mylan Inc. and Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (MLL) pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement of the Orange-Book-listed patents. Valeant also filed an essentially identical lawsuit in the Northern District of West Virginia against the same three defendants. MPI is a West Virginia corporation with a principal place of business in Morgantown, West Virginia. Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. MLL is an Indian corporation with a principal place of business in Hyderabad, India.

The Mylan entities moved to dismiss the New Jersey litigation, arguing that venue was improper under 28 USC § 1400(b) because none of the Mylan defendants reside or have a regular and established place of business in New Jersey, and the only alleged act of infringement (submission of the ANDA) did not occur in New Jersey. In response, Valeant argued that it was unduly narrow to limit “act of infringement” to the act of submitting the ANDA, and that the court should consider the Mylan entities’ planned future acts, which included acts of infringement in New Jersey. The district court granted the Mylan entities’ motion based on improper venue, finding that the ANDA was submitted from West Virginia and thus venue was proper there. Valeant appealed.

The two issues presented on appeal were the proper venue in Hatch-Waxman cases after TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, and the proper venue for patent cases brought against foreign entities. Starting with the first issue, the Federal Circuit explained that determining whether venue is proper under § 1400(b) in a district other than the state in which a defendant is incorporated requires determining where the defendant committed acts of infringement. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, it is an act of infringement to submit an ANDA for a drug claimed in a patent if the purpose of the submission is to obtain approval to engage in commercial activities related to the drug before [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Too Good to Be True? Federal Circuit Demands Evidence of Reliance on Favorable Ruling, Stipulation

by | Nov 4, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that notwithstanding a stipulation on claim construction, a party may still induce infringement absent proof that it actually relied on the stipulation, and that mere inaction, absent an affirmative act to encourage infringement, cannot be the basis for a claim of inducement. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s reduction of the jury’s damages award to $0 despite a finding of direct infringement because the plaintiff failed to prove damages. TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., Case Nos. 19-2192, -2258 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2020) (Taranto, J.).

TecSec owns several patents on systems and methods for multi-level security for network-distributed files. TecSec sued Adobe (among other defendants) in this now-10-year-old-case, which the Federal Circuit has considered several times. As relevant here, the district court entered a claim construction in 2011 that led to a stipulation of non-infringement, and the Federal Circuit reversed that claim construction in 2013. On remand, the district court barred TecSec from introducing evidence of inducement in the 2011–2013 period on the grounds that it was reasonable for Adobe to have relied on the district court’s ruling and the stipulation. On the new claim construction, Adobe stipulated to one act of direct infringement. Adobe also moved for summary judgment of patent ineligibility, which the district court denied, stating that its rationale supported judgment for TecSec that the patents claimed eligible subject matter. At trial, the jury found that the claims were valid and that Adobe directly infringed but did not induce infringement. The jury awarded TecSec $1.75 million in damages. On Adobe’s post-trial motion, the district court reduced the damages award to $0 because TecSec had not proved inducement and had proved no damages associated with the single act of direct infringement. Both parties appealed.

Inducement

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on Adobe’s motion in limine barring inducement evidence for the 2011–2013 period. The district court’s primary rationale for granting the motion had been the reasonableness of Adobe’s reliance on the claim construction order and stipulation of non-infringement. However, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the intent prong of inducement is a subjective inquiry, and that inducement could still be found upon a showing that Adobe subjectively believed that the claim construction order was wrong and would subsequently be reversed.

Jury Instructions

The Federal Circuit next addressed two challenges by TecSec to jury instructions. The first instruction was predicated on three facts: (i) that Adobe had admitted that a certain sequence of steps constituted direct infringement, (ii) that Adobe had performed the steps on at least one occasion, and (iii) that “the parties agree that the one time for which Adobe had admitted infringement . . . occurred before TecSec filed its lawsuit.” The Court found that this instruction was factually accurate and therefore not erroneous. The second instruction explained that inducement required “an affirmative act to encourage infringement,” and that “[e]vidence of mere inaction, or a failure to stop or prevent infringement, does not [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Stay, But Please Fix

by | Nov 4, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a motion to stay issuance of a mandate while a petition for certiorari regarding patentability under § 101 was pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, finding no irreparable harm if it did not do so. American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, Case No. 18-1763 D.I. 139 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2020) (Dyk, J.) (Moore, J., concurring). In her concurrence, Judge Moore encouraged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in order to clarify the scope of § 101.

This decision was the fourth opinion issued by the Federal Circuit in this case. In the Court’s first opinion, a divided panel affirmed that method claims for a mechanical invention were invalid under 35 USC § 101. American Axle & Manufacturing I. The patent owner, American Axle, filed a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc. American Axle & Manufacturing II. Several amicus briefs were filed, including one by former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul R. Michel. In view of these petitions and amicus briefs, the original panel modified and re-issued its opinion to affirm that certain claims were invalid and to reverse its holding that one claim was invalid. Subsequently, the full Federal Circuit denied the petition for a rehearing en banc, polling 6–6 and demonstrating the Court’s division on the application and scope of § 101.

American Axle filed a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court and sought a stay from the Federal Circuit of the issuance of the mandate. The Federal Circuit denied a stay, citing Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which “provides that a motion for stay of the mandate ‘must show that the petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay.’” Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(1). The Court explained that a three-prong test determines whether a stay in a patent case is appropriate under this rule. The applicant must show (1) a reasonable probability that four justices will grant certiorari, (2) a fair prospect that the Supreme Court will reverse judgment, and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if the stay is denied.

Relying exclusively on irreparable harm, the Federal Circuit denied a stay. With respect to the invalid patent claims, the Court explained that a stay was not warranted because no further action was required by the district court. The Court dismissed American Axle’s argument that it would have to recall its mandate if reversed by the Supreme Court, explaining that this occurrence is common for every case that is reversed. With respect to the valid patent claim, the Court explained that the burden of litigation and litigation expenses is insufficient to show irreparable harm. Thus, the Court dismissed American Axle’s motion to stay the mandate.

Judge Moore filed a concurring opinion asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari. Moore explained that the Supreme Court often grants cases where there is a [...]

Continue Reading



read more

First-to-File Rule Must Be Followed Unless Compelling Circumstances Justify Exception

by | Nov 4, 2020 |

Vacating and remanding a district court’s decision not to transfer a case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a petition for a writ of mandamus because the district court did not consider whether the first-to-file rule favored keeping the case in the second-filed court. In re: Nitro, Case No. 20-142 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 28, 2020) (Reyna, J.).

In 2018, Cameron International filed a suit against Nitro in the Southern District of Texas alleging that Nitro’s fracturing-fluid delivery systems infringed three of Cameron’s patents. In February 2020, Cameron filed a second suit against Nitro in the Western District of Texas, alleging that the same accused products infringed two of Cameron’s other related patents. Relying on the first-to-file rule, which generally dictates that the court in which an action is first filed is the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially similar issues should proceed, Nitro moved the Western District of Texas to decline jurisdiction or transfer the action to the Southern District of Texas.

The district court rejected the application of the first-to-file rule, but not because the two cases lacked substantial overlap. Instead, the district court relied on US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit precedent stating that even where there is such overlap, the court still must determine whether there are “sufficiently ‘compelling circumstances’ to avoid the rule’s application.” The district court determined that it was appropriate to use a balance of the traditional transfer factors to make that determination, concluding that when a balance of transfer factors “does not weigh in favor of transfer[,] . . . compelling circumstances exist in order to avoid application of the first-to-file rule.” Applying this standard, the district court denied Nitro’s motion. The district court found that although two of the factors (relative ease of access to sources of proof, and local interest in having localized interests decided at home) favored transfer, the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion, co-pending suits against another defendant involving the same patents, and the district court’s ability to more quickly schedule a trial weighed against transfer. Nitro filed for mandamus.

Proceeding from the district court’s premise that transfer pursuant to the first-to-file rule would be proper absent the existence of compelling circumstances, and that a balance of the transfer factors can support such an exception, the Federal Circuit explained that consideration of Nitro’s petition turned on the correctness of the district court’s application of those factors. The Court explained that the district court had it backwards by concluding that the first-to-file rule is only applicable when the balance of factors favors the first-filed court. Instead, the proper inquiry is that unless the balance of transfer factors favors keeping the case in the second-filed court, there are no compelling circumstances to keep the case in the second-filed court.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court did not resolve the critical issue of whether a balance of the factors favored the second-filed court. The Federal Circuit explained that although [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES