IP UPDATE

CJEU Recognizes Cross-Border Jurisdiction of National Courts, Long-Arm Jurisdiction of UPC

by Dr. Henrik Holzapfel, Lisa Nassi and Dr. Laura Katharina Woll, LL.M. | Mar 6, 2025 | EU Update, Patents

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a decision significantly expanding the capabilities of both the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the national courts in EU Member States to issue cross-border injunctions and adjudicate on patent infringement acts in countries (seemingly) outside their respective jurisdiction. Case C-339/22 (CJEU, Grand Chamber Feb. 25, 2025) ECLI:EU:C:2025:108.

Background

German company BSH Hausgeräte GmbH owns a European patent that is validated in several EU Member States and non-EU countries such as Turkey. BSH sued Swedish company Electrolux AB before a Swedish court for infringement of all national parts of the European patent (including the Turkish part).

Electrolux argued that the parts of the patent validated outside Sweden were invalid and that the Swedish court accordingly lacked jurisdiction to rule on these infringement claims. Electrolux relied on Article 24(4) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, the Brussels I bis Regulation, which confers exclusive jurisdiction for questions of patent validity on the courts of the state where a patent is registered.

The Swedish court of first instance declared that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on infringement of any non-Swedish parts of the patent. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal referred key questions to the CJEU about the interplay between Articles 4(1) and 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Article 4(1) of the Regulation grants the courts of EU Member States general jurisdiction over all infringement actions committed by a person or company domiciled in their territory (regardless of where the infringement occurred). One of the relevant questions in this case was whether, in light of Article 24(4) of the Regulation, the court hearing the patent infringement action loses jurisdiction when an invalidity defense is raised.

Long-Arm Jurisdiction and Invalidity Defense

The CJEU clarified that Article 24(4) of the Regulation must be interpreted narrowly. According to the CJEU, the “validity of patents” mentioned in Article 24(4) of the Regulation only pertains to validity challenges that would lead to the annulment of the patent with effect erga omnes. Such erga omnes validity proceedings must still be brought before the courts of the forum of registration (e.g., the German Federal Patent Court in the case of the German part of a European patent). However, the CJEU considers that Article 24(4) of the Regulation does not apply to an inter partes invalidity defense raised in patent infringement litigation. Consequently, according to Article 4(1) of the Regulation, a court of an EU Member State in which the infringement case is being heard can decide on patent infringements in another EU Member State or in a third (non-EU) country and does not lose its jurisdiction if an invalidity defense is raised. Patent proprietors can therefore obtain cross-border injunctions in national courts of EU Member States (as well as before the UPC, even in states that do not take part in the UPC), and the courts remain jurisdictionally competent even if the infringer imposes an invalidity defense.

Where a third country outside of [...]

Continue Reading

Sour Grapes: Attorney’s Oral Agreement Might Be Okay if Fair, Just, and Fully Advised

by Amol Parikh | Feb 27, 2025 | Uncategorized

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that a district court erred in declaring on summary judgment that an attorney had no ownership interest in a winery because the alleged agreement was made orally. The Ninth Circuit explained that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the attorney could rebut the presumption against oral agreements by showing that the transaction was fair and just and that the client was fully advised. Schrader Cellars, LLC v. Roach, Case Nos. 23-15862; -15990 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2025) (Smith, Bennett, Johnstone, JJ.)

Fred Schrader is the former owner of Schrader Cellars (Cellars). Robert Roach is a Texas attorney who claims to have entered into an oral agreement with Schrader regarding the creation of another company, RBS LLC, which Roach asserts has an ownership interest in Cellars. After Schrader sold Cellars in 2017, Roach sued Schrader in Texas state court, claiming that the sale was improper. In 2021, Cellars filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking, among other things, a declaration that Roach did not have any ownership interest in Cellars. Roach asserted various counterclaims.

The district court granted summary judgment on Cellars’ request for declaratory relief and dismissed Roach’s counterclaims. The case proceeded to trial on Cellars’ remaining claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The district court instructed the jury that, as a matter of law, Roach had breached his fiduciary duties to Cellars, so the jury decided only the issue of harm. The jury found that Roach’s breach of fiduciary duty had harmed Cellars during the limitations period but did not award damages because of the “litigation privilege defense.” Roach appealed the summary judgment order.

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred in granting Cellars summary judgment. Roach argued that the district court erred in declaring that he had no ownership interest in Cellars via the purported RBS agreement. At summary judgment, Cellars argued that even if Roach’s version of the RBS oral agreement existed, Roach could not enforce it because it violated California Rules of Professional Responsibility, which require written advisories and disclosures. Relying on this provision, the district court concluded that even if an oral argument existed, it was unenforceable, and Roach therefore could not have any ownership interest in Cellars. The district court noted that although “[a]n attorney may rebut the presumption of undue influence by showing that ‘the dealing was fair and just,’ and ‘the client was fully advised[,]’ . . . Roach has made no such effort to rebut this presumption.”

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred because there were triable issues of fact concerning whether Roach rebutted the presumption regarding the alleged breach of his client duties. The Court explained that not only did Roach expressly argue fairness before the district court, but the basic facts of the case (when viewed in the light most favorable to Roach) demonstrated that the transaction was fair and just and that [...]

Continue Reading

Diamond in the Rough: Federal Circuit Polishes § 101’s Abstract Idea Test

by Keval Amin | Feb 20, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a determination by the US International Trade Commission regarding subject matter ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court concluded that the Commission’s “loose and generalized” analysis did not adequately consider the specific and technical improvements specified by the claims. US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 23-1217 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2025) (Dyk, Chen, Stoll, JJ.)

US Synthetic Corp. (USS) filed a complaint with the Commission, alleging that several entities (intervenors) violated § 337 of the Tariff Act by importing and selling certain products that infringed five of USS’s patents. The patent at issue concerned a composition of a polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) and disclosed an improved method for manufacturing PDCs.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that several claims of the patent were valid and infringed under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. However, the ALJ found the claims patent-ineligible under § 101, deeming them directed to an abstract idea. The Commission affirmed this finding while rejecting the intervenors’ argument that the claims lacked enablement under § 112. Consequently, the only bar to a § 337 violation was the § 101 ruling. USS appealed, challenging the Commission’s patent ineligibility determination, while the intervenors argued that the claims were not enabled.

The Federal Circuit determined that the patent claims were directed to a specific technological improvement rather than an abstract idea. The Court had consistently explained that claims that provide a concrete technological solution to a recognized problem in the field are patent-eligible under § 101. Here, the claimed invention was not merely an implementation of an abstract idea on a generic computer; rather, it provided a particularized solution rooted in the physical composition of matter defined by constituent elements, dimensional information, and inherent material properties.

Applying the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework, the Federal Circuit reasoned that, under Alice step one, courts must determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea or a patent-eligible improvement. In this case, the Court found that the patent claims were not directed to an abstract idea because they recited a specific solution that was directed to a non-abstract composition of matter: PDC. Unlike claims found ineligible in prior cases, USS’s patent did not merely recite a mathematical algorithm or fundamental economic practice but instead provided a tangible technological advancement for an improved method for manufacturing PDCs.

The Federal Circuit noted that even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one, the claimed invention contained an inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into patent-eligible subject matter under Alice step two. The Court explained that an inventive concept exists when the claims recite a specific, unconventional solution that goes beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the field. Here, the Court determined that the claimed invention included an innovative combination of components (diamond, cobalt catalyst, and substrate) in conjunction with particular dimensional information (grain size) and [...]

Continue Reading

Small-Market Segment Can Still Satisfy Domestic Industry Requirement

by Dexter Hamilton | Feb 20, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US International Trade Commission finding, explaining that small-market segments can be significant and substantial enough to support the Commission’s domestic industry requirement. Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 23-1389, (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2025) (Moore, Chen, Murphy, JJ.)

Ventria Bioscience Inc. owns a patent directed to cell-culture media, which supplies nutrients to cells grown in artificial environments. Ventria filed a complaint at the Commission alleging that Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology violated § 337 of the Tariff Act by importing products that infringed the patent. The Commission ultimately found that Healthgen imported infringing products and that Ventria had satisfied the domestic industry requirement. Healthgen appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s domestic industry finding. The Court began by explaining the long-standing principle that patent infringement-based violations of § 337, which establishes unlawful import practices, require that “an industry in the United States, relating to the articles protected by the patent…exists or is in the process of being established.” This requirement is divided into economic and technical prongs. Here, Healthgen conceded that the technical prong was satisfied by a Ventria product (Optibumin) that practiced the patent.

The economic prong considers three factors, any of which are sufficient to satisfy the prong. As identified by the subsections of § 337(a)(3), “there is in the United States, with respect to the articles of the patent…(A) significant investment in plant and equipment; (B) significant employment of labor or capital; or (C) substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research and development, or licensing.” The Commission found that each of these factors was met because, among other things, Ventria had 100% of its relevant investments in Optibumin located within the United States. The conclusion was further supported by a comparison of the investments to Obtibumin’s revenue.

Healthgen argued that the investments were too small to be significant or substantial, and that Optibumin’s revenue was low, which inflated investment-to-revenue ratios. The Federal Circuit rejected Healthgen’s argument, stating that “[s]mall market segments can still be significant and substantial enough to satisfy the domestic industry requirement.” The Court continued, stating that a domestic industry analysis “cannot hinge on a threshold dollar value or require a rigid formula; rather, the analysis requires a holistic review of all relevant considerations that is very context dependent.” Here, the Court found that “[t]hough the dollar amounts of Ventria’s Optibumin investments are small, the Commission found all of the investments are domestic, all market activities occur within the United States, and the high investment-to-revenue ratios indicate this is a valuable market.” The Court found that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the Commission.

Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Apply to Unchallenged IPR Claims

by Jodi Benassi | Feb 20, 2025 | Patents

The US Court Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that despite a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that certain challenged patent claims were unpatentable based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, the patent owner is not collaterally estopped from asserting other, unreviewed claims of that patent in district court litigation. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Case No. 23-1359 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2025) (Prost, Reyna, Taranto JJ.)

Kroy sued Groupon for patent infringement. In response, Groupon filed two inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging 21 claims of the patent at issue. After Groupon’s IPR deadline passed, Kroy amended its complaint to add additional claims from the challenged patent. The Board found all 21 challenged claims unpatentable. Kroy amended its complaint again, this time removing the 21 unpatentable claims and including only claims that were not at issue in the IPR proceedings.

In response, Groupon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Board’s prior IPR rulings on the unpatentable claims collaterally estopped Kroy from asserting the new claims. The district court agreed, finding that if the Board issues final judgment that a patent claim is unpatentable and another claim is immaterially different, then collateral estoppel applies to that other claim for purposes of invalidity. Applying that standard, the district court determined that the new claims were not materially different from the unpatentable claims in terms of invalidity and granted Groupon’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Kroy appealed.

Kroy argued that collateral estoppel should not apply because the burden of proof for invalidity in an IPR proceeding (preponderance of the evidence) is lower than in the district court (clear and convincing). The Federal Circuit noted that this case presents a distinct question of collateral estoppel law; that is, whether a prior final written decision of the Board that certain patent claims are unpatentable precludes a patentee from asserting other claims from the same patent, even assuming the asserted claims are immaterially different from the unpatentable claims for purposes of invalidity.

Referring to its recent 2024 decision in ParkerVision v. Qualcomm, the Federal Circuit clarified that collateral estoppel does not apply to new claims that have not yet been adjudicated. The Court explained that Groupon must prove the invalidity of these new claims in the district court by clear and convincing evidence. The Court dismissed Groupon’s reliance on the 2013 Ohio Willow Wood decision, noting that this case addressed whether a prior district court’s invalidity ruling estopped the patentee from asserting claims in the district court that are immaterially different for purposes of invalidity. On the other hand, the Ohio Willow Wood estoppel scenario occurred in district courts involving the same burden of proof. Because the Board determined unpatentability on separate patent claims based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, courts cannot collaterally estop a patentee from asserting other, unadjudicated patent claims in district court litigation.