IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Results for "Patent application"
Subscribe to Results for "Patent application"'s Posts

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

Inventor Uses Abstention to Avoid Getting “Screwed”

by | Oct 22, 2020 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a declaratory judgment complaint related to patent validity under the federal abstention doctrine because the issue had been decided in state court. Warsaw Orthopedic, Medtronic Inc., et al. v. Rick C. Sasso, M.D., Case No. 19-1583 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2020) (Newman, J.).

Warsaw Orthopedic and Medtronic (collectively, Medtronic) filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Sasso, a surgeon and inventor. The district court dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, under the doctrine of federal court “abstention” because of a concurrent lawsuit in state court between the same parties and concerning the same dispute. As described by the respective plaintiffs, the state court case is “a contract case for payment of patent rights,” and the federal case is “a patent case in which payment requires valid patents.”

In 1999, Medtronic and Sasso entered into an agreement that provided for quarterly royalty payments based on Medtronic’s sales of medical devices using Sasso’s inventions related to screw delivery systems and methods. The agreement does not terminate until “the last to expire of the patents included in Intellectual Property Rights, or if no patent application(s) issue into a patent having valid claim coverage of the Medical Device, then seven (7) years from the Date of First Sale of the Medical Device.” Two patents issued for the invention at issue, and Medtronic made royalty payments from 2002 to 2018.

In 2014, Sasso filed a lawsuit in Indiana state court for breach of contract and damages because Medtronic was not paying royalties on all relevant devices. Medtronic argued that Sasso was seeking royalties for products not covered by a valid patent claim. The district court granted Sasso’s motion for summary judgment on the term of the agreement and on patent validity as a defense to payment, stating that the monies to be paid under the agreement depend on the issuance of the patents and their expiration—not their validity. At trial, the jury found that Medtronic had breached the agreement and awarded damages. Medtronic filed an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Medtronic also filed a declaratory judgment action in Indiana district court. Medtronic alleged that no valid claim of the patents covered the Medtronic products for which Sasso sought royalties. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice, stating that the state court had already entered judgment in favor of Sasso and no order from the district court could undo that judgment—only the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court have authority to review that judgment.

Medtronic appealed to the Federal Circuit, asserting that the district court’s “abstention” was an abuse of discretion. Medtronic argued that because the agreement required valid claim coverage, and patent validity is within exclusive federal jurisdiction, the district court had an obligation to receive and resolve the dispute.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court had reasonably relied on the Supreme Court’s Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine (1995), which provides support for district courts to dismiss or [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Bad Conduct During Litigation Means Attorneys’ Fees Against the Government, Regardless of Damage Amount

by | May 14, 2020 |

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).

(more…)



read more

Voluntary Dismissal Does Not Preclude Attorney’s Fees under Rule 54(d)

by | Apr 15, 2020 |

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.).

(more…)



read more

Key Takeaways from MWE International Seminar Intellectual Property Session – January 2020

by | Feb 13, 2020 |

On January 21 and 22, 2020, the 8th annual McDermott International Seminars took place in Osaka and Tokyo. These seminars focused on cross-border M&A, GDPR, intellectual property, global enforcement and other key topics. Lawyers from McDermott’s US and European offices, including Washington, DC; Chicago; New York; Paris; London; Brussels; and Munich, discussed these topics with Japanese companies operating globally. During the International Seminars, the Intellectual Property team discussed insights around emerging technologies and intellectual property.

What follows are key takeaways from the IP session of the seminar. (See highlights from the full Seminar.)

(more…)



read more

No Leave, No Appeal: UPC Court of Appeal Denies Request for Discretionary Review

by | Oct 24, 2024 | ,

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled that if a party wishes to appeal against a procedural order, and leave to appeal has not already been granted in the order, the party must first apply to the Court of First Instance for leave to appeal. Only if such an application is rejected is it then possible to request a discretionary review by the CoA (pursuant to Rule 220.3 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP)). Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation (_586/2024, APL_ 54732/2024) (UPC CoA Oct. 9, 2024) (Simonsson, Standing J.)

In the proceedings between Suinno and Microsoft before the UPC Central Division Paris (Court of First Instance in these proceedings), the latter ordered the claimant, Suinno, to provide security for costs. There was no indication in the order that it could be appealed.

Suinno did not request that the Court of First Instance grant leave to appeal, but instead directly lodged a request for discretionary review of the order with the CoA.

The CoA deemed this request inadmissible and dismissed the appeal. The standing judge (see Rules 345.5 and .8 of the RoP) noted that the Court of First Instance had neither granted nor denied leave to appeal and the first instance order did not contain any reference to Article 73 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) and Rule 220.2 of the RoP, contrary to Rule 158.3 of the RoP.

However, this did not relieve Suinno from its obligation to request a grant of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance. Absent an express grant or refusal of a grant, there is no implied grant of leave to appeal, notwithstanding that the Court of First Instance did not mention the possibility of requesting leave to appeal. The CoA cited Rule 158 of the RoP but noted that the absence of the indication referring to Article 73 of the UPCA and Rule 220.2 of the RoP cannot be understood as an implied grant.

Practice Note: A discretionary review by the CoA pursuant to Rule 220.3 of the RoP is only permissible if the Court of First Instance has expressly granted or expressly refused to grant leave to appeal, which is in line with other CoA decisions on this issue (See, e.g., CoA, Order of August 21, 2024; UPC_CoA_454/2024, APL_44552/2024, para 21; Order of October 15, 2024, CoA_UPC 01/2024, ORD_41423/2024 in the main proceedings ACT_588685/2023, UPC_CFI_440/2023, para 6).

Even if, contrary to the RoP, a first instance decision of the UPC does not contain any indication that an appeal may be filed in accordance with the UPCA and the RoP (but is silent on the issue of appeal in general), there is no positive effect for a party wishing to appeal the decision; it is still necessary to request a grant of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Chickening Out: Reason for Trademark Abandonment Irrelevant Without Proof of Intent to Resume

by | Oct 3, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment decision finding that the prior owner of a trademark for fresh chicken had abandoned the mark by failing to use it for three years and failing to show an intent to resume use of the mark. To-Ricos, Ltd. v. Productos Avícolas Del Sur, Inc., Case No. 22-1853 (1st Cir. Sept. 19, 2024) (Montecalvo, Lipez, Thompson, JJ.)

PAS, a Puerto Rico corporation, sold Pollo Picú branded chicken from 2005 to 2011. The Picú trademark consists of a cartoon chicken with the phrase “Pollo Picú” underneath it:

While Pollo Picú was once a well-recognized brand in Puerto Rico, PAS encountered administrative and financial challenges. In 2006 and 2009, it failed to file declarations with the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) attesting to the use of the mark as required by Section 8 of the Lanham Act. The PTO therefore canceled the Picú trademark registration. PAS stopped selling chicken bearing the mark after its bank froze PAS’s financing in 2011. The bank filed suit in January 2012 under a preexisting loan agreement in which PAS had granted the bank a lien over PAS’s assets, including the Picú mark. PAS offered to sell the company to To-Ricos, PAS’s main competitor, but no sale occurred.

In October 2014, PAS and the bank signed a settlement agreement requiring PAS to pay a stipulated sum by December 2014 or the bank would foreclose on most of PAS’s assets, but not the Picú mark. The agreement provided that the bank would retain its lien over the mark until the foreclosure proceedings concluded. PAS failed to make the payment, but the bank did not exercise its foreclosure rights. In June 2017, PAS moved for the Commonwealth Court to order the bank to foreclose on PAS’s assets or declare PAS free of its obligations to the bank. The Commonwealth Court granted the motion in November 2019.

In April 2016, To-Ricos applied to register the Picú mark with the PTO. Three months later, PAS applied to re-register the same mark and filed an opposition to To-Ricos’s application. A year later, PAS licensed the right to use the Picú mark in the United States to IMEX. IMEX sold chicken under the mark for a few months but stopped after To-Ricos sent cease and desist letters.

In June 2019, To-Ricos began selling Picú branded chicken. It also filed a lawsuit against PAS, seeking a declaratory judgment establishing To-Ricos as the legal owner of the Picú mark. To-Ricos moved for summary judgment, arguing that PAS had abandoned its mark. PAS opposed. The district court agreed with To-Ricos, noting that PAS admitted to not having used the mark in commerce for at least three consecutive years prior to To-Ricos’s application, and that PAS had not demonstrated its intent to resume use of the mark within that period. PAS appealed.

PAS [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Creative License: Fair Use Defense Paints Over Infringement Battle

by | Oct 3, 2024 | ,

Affirming the application of the fair use defense to copyright infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that a district court’s sua sponte invocation of a fair use defense to parallel trademark claims was harmless error. The Court also affirmed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees based on the prevailing party standard for copyright claims. Keck v. Mix Creative Learning Ctr., L.L.C., Case No. 23-20188 (5th Cir. Sept. 18, 2024) (Jones, Smith, Ho, JJ.)

Michel Keck, a multimedia artist, sued Mix Creative Learning Center, a Texas-based art studio, for copyright and trademark infringement after Mix Creative sold art kits featuring Keck’s dog-themed artwork and a brief biography, intended for at-home learning during the pandemic. Keck had registered her Dog Art series (in the form of decorative works) with the US Copyright Office and her name as a trademark with the US Patent & Trademark Office. Keck claimed that Mix Creative’s art kits violated her rights. After receiving notice of the lawsuit, Mix Creative promptly ceased selling its kits.

Following discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mix Creative on Keck’s copyright claim, finding fair use, and also granted summary judgment on the trademark claim sua sponte, as both parties had agreed that the fair use defense applied to both claims. The district court further awarded Mix Creative more than $100,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, although it declined to hold Keck’s attorneys jointly and severally liable.

Keck appealed, challenging the copyright fair use finding and the district court’s sua sponte application of the fair use defense to the trademark claim. Mix Creative challenged the district court’s refusal to hold Keck’s attorneys jointly and severally liable for fees.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the fair use defense to Keck’s copyright claims. The Court focused on the first and fourth factors of the fair use defense (respectively, the purpose and character of the use and the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the original work), noting that the courts typically give these two factors special attention.

On the first factor, the Fifth Circuit found Mix Creative’s use to be transformative. Although Mix Creative is a commercial enterprise, the art kits served an educational purpose, distinct from the decorative purpose of Keck’s original works. As a result, the likelihood of Mix Creative’s kits serving as a substitute for Keck’s original works in the market was low.

The fourth factor also favored Mix Creative, as the Fifth Circuit found no evidence that Mix Creative’s kits would harm the market value of Keck’s original decorative works. In fact, the Court suggested that the kits might enhance Keck’s reputation and sales by providing her with free advertising. Furthermore, Mix Creative operated in a different market (educational rather than decorative), and Keck had not demonstrated any history of selling derivative works for children’s art lessons. The [...]

Continue Reading



read more

When Can Same Claim Limitation Have Different Meanings? When It’s Functional, Of Course

by | Sep 26, 2024 |

Addressing for the first time whether a functional limitation must carry the same meaning in all claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that it need not, vacating a district court decision to the contrary. Vascular Sol. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 2024-1398 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2024) (Moore, Prost, JJ.; Mazzant, Dist. J., by designation).

The seven patents asserted by Teleflex syin this case all come from a common application and are directed to a “coaxial guide catheter that is deliverable through standard guide catheters by utilizing a guidewire rail segment to permit delivery without blocking use of the guide catheter.” The asserted patents all share a common specification. However, the asserted claims differ in how they refer to the “side opening.” Some claims include the side opening as part of the “substantially rigid portion/segment” while other claims recite that the side opening is separate and distal to the “substantially rigid portion/segment.”

This case has a long procedural history involving an initial preliminary injunction motion and multiple inter partes reviews (IPRs). At the second preliminary injunction stage, Medtronic and the district court grouped the asserted limitations into two mutually exclusive groups:

  • Group One, which included the “substantially rigid portion/segment” claim limitation.
  • Group Two, which “required that the side opening not be in the substantially rigid portion” (emphasis supplied).

In denying Medtronic’s preliminary injunction motion, the district court questioned “how a skilled artisan could possibly be expected to understand the scope of a patent when the same device could simultaneously infringe two mutually exclusive claims within that patent.”

The district court then proceeded to claim construction. It rejected both parties’ initial constructions and appointed an independent expert – former US Patent & Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu – to propose a construction. Teleflex argued that Iancu should adopt a split construction (i.e., one construction for the Group One limitations and another construction for the Group Two limitations). Medtronic argued that the claims were indefinite. Iancu rejected both proposed constructions but agreed with the district court on the mutual exclusivity of the two groups. The district court determined that all claims that included the “substantially rigid portion/segment” were indefinite, and since all the asserted claims included that term, the parties stipulated to final judgment. Teleflex appealed.

Teleflex argued that the district court erred in determining that the boundary of the substantially rigid portion must be the same for all claims. Medtronic argued that the claims were indefinite.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred when it determined that the Group One and Group Two limitations were mutually exclusive and indefinite. The Federal Circuit cautioned that affirming the district court’s conclusion would mean that claims in a patent cannot vary in how they claim the disclosed subject matter and that independent claims must be entirely consistent with other independent claims, neither of which is a restriction in how patentees may claim subject matter. The Federal Circuit explained that at the claim construction stage [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Not Just a Blip: Section 101 as Affirmative Defense

by | Aug 15, 2024 |

On appeal from a motion to dismiss based on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a district court appropriately analyzed certain claims as representative claims and that the claims were directed to an abstract idea and did not recite an inventive concept. Mobile Acuity, Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Case No. 22-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024) (Lourie, Bryson, Stark, JJ.)

Mobile Acuity sued Blippar for infringement of claims from two patents directed to software for accessing stored information with a captured image. Mobile Acuity’s operative second amended complaint asserted that Blippar infringed “at least Claims 9, 11, and 16” of one patent and “Claims 9, 11, and 16” of the other. Blippar asserted that claim 9 of each patent was “representative of the entire claim set in each respective Asserted Patent” and that the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Blippar’s motion and subsequently denied Mobile Acuity’s motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file a third amended complaint.

Mobile Acuity appealed, asserting that the district court committed several errors, including the treatment of claim 9 in each asserted patent as a representative claim and the holding that the asserted patents were invalid as claiming ineligible subject matter.

Mobile Acuity first argued that the district court erred in holding that a challenge under § 101 is not an affirmative defense. The Federal Circuit agreed that an eligibility challenge on § 101 grounds is an affirmative defense but found that the district court simply misspoke when it stated during oral argument “[w]e are not talking about an affirmative defense.” However, the Federal Circuit concluded that the “error in word choice was harmless because the district court applied the correct legal standard for evaluating an affirmative defense at the motion to dismiss stage.”

In support of its denied motion to amend, Mobile Acuity argued that “the district court required it to ‘anticipate [the] defendant’s affirmative defense in its complaint.’” The Federal Circuit rebuffed this argument, concluding that the district court did not grant the motion to dismiss on the grounds that Mobile Acuity failed to address patentable subject matter in its complaints but correctly dismissed based on an affirmative defense that “clearly appears on the face of the pleading.” The Court stated that “as we have repeatedly recognized, it is possible and proper to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”

On the merits, the Federal Circuit first determined that the district court did not merely treat claim 9 of each of the asserted patents as representative of all claims. The Federal Circuit explained that “the court did more, separately analyzing all six claims Mobile Acuity specifically identified in the operative complaint,” as well as two additional claims. The Federal Circuit also agreed with the district court that the six claims were representative “of all claims of the two Asserted Patents.”

As to the merits of the motion to dismiss, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES