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

Copyright Claims Board Clarifies Service Rules and Opt-Outs

by | Mar 17, 2022 |

The US Copyright Office issued two final rules for how companies can designate agents to receive claims and how libraries can preemptively opt out of claims before the Copyright Claims Board (CCB). The agency has been drafting rules governing the CCB since it was established in 2020. The new venue is designed to serve as an alternative forum where parties may voluntarily seek to resolve certain copyright claims regarding any category of copyrighted work.

Companies Can Designate Subsidiaries as Agents of Service

Section 37 CFR § 222.6 (Designated service agents) becomes law effective April 7, 2022. This forthcoming rule will allow corporations, partnerships and unincorporated associations to use the same designated agent for process of service for separate legal entities under their direct or indirect common control. This rule will also allow companies with many subsidiaries to designate one service agent for each of its affiliates.

Libraries and Archives Can Preemptively Opt Out

Section 37 CFR § 223.2 (Libraries and archives opt-out procedures) becomes law effective April 8, 2022. Under this new law, a library or archive that wishes to preemptively opt out of participating in CCB proceedings may do so by submitting written notification to the CCB. The notification must certify that the library or archive qualifies for the limitations on exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. 108, which provides that it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archive, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce a single copy of a work under certain conditions.

Class Action Opt-Out Procedures

Section 37 CFR § 223.3 (Class action opt-out procedures) becomes law effective April 8, 2022. Under the new law, if a party to an active CCB proceeding receives notice of a pending or putative class action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the proceeding before the CCB in which the party is a class member, that party may either opt out of the class action or seek written dismissal of the proceeding before the CCB within 14 days of receiving notice of the pending class action.



read more

Dude, Where’s My Venue? Texas Car Dealerships Aren’t Distributor Agents

by | Mar 17, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s denial of motions made by two car distributors to transfer cases out of the Western District of Texas for improper venue, finding that the patent owner failed to establish that franchised car dealerships in the judicial district were agents of the manufacturers for venue purposes under § 1400(b). In re Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., Case Nos. 22-108; -109 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022) (Dyk, Reyna, Chen, JJ.) (per curiam).

StratosAudio filed complaints in the Western District of Texas against Volkswagen and Hyundai, asserting infringement of infotainment-related patents. Volkswagen and Hyundai are car distributors incorporated in New Jersey and California, respectively. Both distributors moved to dismiss or transfer their cases for improper venue under § 1406(a). The district court denied the motions, concluding that venue was proper because independently owned Volkswagen and Hyundai car dealerships operated in the district. The district court found that franchise agreements gave the car distributors sufficient control over their respective dealerships such that they constituted regular and established places of business in the district. The district court reached this finding despite the fact that Texas law prohibited direct or indirect operation or control of a franchise by a car manufacturer or distributor. Volkswagen and Hyundai petitioned the Federal Circuit for writ of mandamus to vacate the district court’s order or transfer for improper venue.

The Federal Circuit first considered whether mandamus review was appropriate. The Court explained that it may only issue a writ if the petitioner has no other means adequate to attain the desired relief. In contrast to a motion to transfer to a more convenient venue under § 1404(a), denial of a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue under § 1406(a) can be remedied on appeal from final judgment. The Court explained that mandamus relief is therefore only available for a ruling on a § 1406(a) motion where the issue presented doing so is important to “proper judicial administration.” Citing to its ruling in In re. Google LLC, the Court explained that this condition may be met when there are a significant number of district court decisions that adopt conflicting views on a basic legal issue. The Court described the disagreement among district courts over whether independent car dealerships establish venue over vehicle manufacturer and distributors and determined that the situation warranted immediate review.

The Federal Circuit turned to the merits to analyze the factors for determining whether a defendant has a “regular and established place of business” for the purposes of establishing proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). There was no dispute that the car dealerships were physically located in the Western District of Texas, and that the defendants did not have any employees at these locations. The Court thus identified the three operative statutory requirements that StratosAudio had the burden of establishing:

  • Whether the dealerships were the agents of the defendants
  • Whether the dealerships conducted the defendants’ [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Lawyers Scolded but Not Sanctioned for Violating Federal Circuit’s COVID-19 Rules

by | Mar 10, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided not to impose sanctions for violation of its COVID-19 restrictions on the number of counsel permitted to attend oral argument, citing the involved lawyers’ “earnest remorse.” In re Violation of the Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments and Related Order, Case No. 22-9000 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 25, 2022) (per curiam).

When the Federal Circuit reopened for in-person oral arguments in September 2021, it continued to restrict public access to the National Courts Building and set out strict protocols governing appearances at oral argument. Under those protocols, only arguing counsel and up to one additional attendee whose presence was necessary to assist or supervise the arguing counsel could attend. All persons entering the building had to sign a form certifying that they were either arguing counsel or assisting or supervising arguing counsel. Arguing counsel had to sign an additional form taking personal responsibility for ensuring that all individuals attending argument with the arguing counsel had read and would comply with the COVID-19 protocols.

Several senior lawyers from one law firm wanted to attend a junior colleague’s oral argument. The junior lawyer moved for permission for two lawyers and two other individuals to attend the oral argument in addition to arguing counsel and the one permitted assistant/supervisor. The Federal Circuit denied the motion. Nonetheless, on the day of argument, four lawyers (each carrying the required form) went to the courthouse and entered the assigned courtroom. The two non-arguing, non-assisting/supervising lawyers sat in the back corner of the courtroom until they were summoned to the front by a deputy clerk and told to leave the courtroom. The lawyers returned to the lobby area and were subsequently escorted out of the building.

The matter was referred to the Federal Circuit’s standing panel on attorney discipline, which ordered all four lawyers to show cause why they should not be sanctioned. The lawyers stated that they had gone to the courthouse notwithstanding the denial of their motion for leave to attend the hearing merely to seek clarification on any potential changed circumstances that might permit their attendance. They also argued that the Court’s COVID-19 restrictions were ambiguous. Finally, they expressed remorse for having violated the rules.

The Federal Circuit criticized the lawyers for trying to attend the oral argument even though their motion for leave to attend was denied. The Court noted that the lawyers might have sought clarification or reconsideration of the denial in writing but stated that it was inappropriate for the lawyers to have sought such clarification or reconsideration in person at the time of the hearing. The Court also called the lawyers’ argument that the protocols were ambiguous “wholly without merit.” Nonetheless, on a finding that the lawyers’ remorse was earnest, the Court decided not to impose sanctions.

Practice Note: Anyone might make an occasional error in judgment. While remorse does not undo such an error, it can at least help prevent sanctions from being imposed. Then again, the Federal Circuit has now [...]

Continue Reading



read more

California, I’m Coming Home: Transfer to Venue Where Products Were Designed Is Appropriate

by | Mar 10, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a patent owner’s petition for writ of mandamus, finding that the district court properly transferred a case from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Northern District of California because the center of the alleged infringing activities occurred in California. In re: SunStone Information Defense, Inc., Case No. 2022-121 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2022) (Moore, Dyk, Stoll, JJ). (non-precedential).

SunStone filed a patent infringement suit against F5 Networks and one of its customers in the Eastern District of Virginia. F5 Networks moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing that at the time of filing, SunStone was headquartered in Northern California, and the F5 Networks subsidiary that designed and developed the accused products was also located in the area. F5 Networks also noted that essentially all of the relevant documents and knowledgeable employees were in Northern California.

The district court granted F5 Networks’ motion, explaining that F5 Networks satisfied its burden of proving that transfer was warranted based on convenience of the parties and witnesses and because California was the “center of the alleged infringing activities.” The district court also noted that neither party disputed that the action “might have been brought” in the Northern District of California. SunStone petitioned for writ of mandamus.

The Federal Circuit applied the law of the regional circuit (the Fourth Circuit), which requires finding a clear abuse of discretion in order to overturn a district court’s transfer decision. The Court found that SunStone failed to meet this “stringent standard.” The Court also found that SunStone’s choice of forum was not entitled to significant weight because it was not SunStone’s home forum and had no specific connection to the infringement claims. The Court therefore denied SunStone’s petition.

Practice Note: This is another decision in a long line of recent Federal Circuit rulings relating to venue, which are summarized in an article related to a string of transfer denials in the Western District of Texas and our 2022 IP Outlook Report: The Developments Shaping Patent Law.



read more

What Preclusion? Post-IPR Reexam Moves Forward

by | Mar 10, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived a petitioner’s validity challenge seeking ex parte review at the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO), reversing a district court decision dismissing its complaint seeking Administrative Procedures Act (APA) review of the PTO Director’s vacatur decision. The Federal Circuit concluded that the petitioner was not subject to inter partes review (IPR) estoppel from pursuing reexamination after receiving IPR final written decisions concerning the same claims of the same patents. Alarm.com Inc. v. Hirshfeld, Case No. 21-2102 (Fed Cir, Feb 24, 2022) (Taranto, Chen, Cunningham, JJ.)

This case explores the tension between the ex parte reexam statute and the IPR estoppel statute. Under 35 U.S.C. § 302, “any person at any time may file a request for reexamination . . . of any claim of a patent on the basis of any prior art cited under [§ 301].” If the PTO Director determines “pursuant to [§ 303(a)] that no substantial new question of patentability is raised,” that determination “will be final and nonappealable.” § 303(c). If a substantial new question is deemed to have been raised, “the determination will include an order for reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question.” § 304. Under § 315(e)(1), a petitioner in an IPR that results in a final written decision is estopped from requesting or maintaining a proceeding before the PTO “with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.”

Alarm.com filed several IPR petitions that resulted in three final written decisions holding that Alarm.com had not carried its burden of proving that the challenged claims at issue were unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed all three decisions in its 2018 ruling in Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com. Alarm.com subsequently filed three requests for ex parte reexamination of the same claims under 35 U.S.C. § 302 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.510, presenting different grounds than were presented in the IPRs. Instead of rendering a § 303(a) decision on the issue of whether petitioner presented a substantial new questions of patentability, the Director vacated the requests, finding that Alarm.com reasonably could have raised its reexamination grounds in the IPRs and, therefore, was estopped under § 315(e)(1) from submitting the requests. Alarm.com filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia against the Director and the PTO under 5 U.S.C. § 702, stating that the Director’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. Following dismissal of the complaint, Alarm.com appealed.

The PTO argued that the overall ex parte reexamination scheme precluded judicial review of the Director’s vacatur decision based on § 315(e)(1) estoppel, which brought Alarm.com’s challenge within the exception to APA review, i.e., where “statutes preclude judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1). The PTO did not raise any other arguments as to why judicial review would not be available under the APA.

The Federal Circuit explained that “[t]he only portion of the ex parte reexamination statutory scheme that expressly precludes judicial review is § [...]

Continue Reading



read more

“TRUMP TOO SMALL” Trademark Decision Leaves Big Questions

by | Mar 10, 2022 |

Revisiting jurisprudence touching on the Lanham Act and the First Amendment from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Matal v. Tam and Iancu v. Brunetti, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that applying Sec. 2(c) of the Lanham Act (which bars registration of a trademark that consists of or comprises a name of a particular living individual without their written consent) may, in certain instances, unconstitutionally restrict free speech in violation of the First Amendment. In this instance, the Federal Circuit found that the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s (Board) refusal to register the trademark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for use on t-shirts involved content-based discrimination that was not justified by a compelling or substantial government interest. In re: Steve Elster, Case No. 20-2205 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2022) (Dyk, Taranto, Chen, JJ.)

Steve Elster filed a US trademark application in 2018 for the mark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” (a reference to a 2016 Republican presidential primary debate exchange between then- candidate Donald Trump and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)) for use on shirts. The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) examining attorney, and subsequently the Board, refused registration of the mark on grounds that it clearly referred to former President Trump, and that Elster did not have written consent to use former President Trump’s name in violation of Sec. 2(c) of the Lanham Act. Sec. 2(c) requires such consent when a trademark identifies a “particular living individual.” Elster argued that his trademark aimed to convey that some features of former President Trump and his policies were diminutive and appealed the Board’s holding that Sec. 2(c) is narrowly tailored to advance two compelling government interests, namely, protecting an individual’s rights of privacy and publicity and protecting consumers against source deception.

The Federal Circuit started with a brief primer on relatively recent decisions in which the Supreme Court found certain provisions of Sec. 2(a) to be improper viewpoint discrimination because they barred registration of trademarks that were disparaging or comprised of immoral or scandalous matter. The Federal Circuit found that while neither Tam nor Brunetti resolved Elster’s appeal pertaining to Sec. 2(c), the cases did establish that a trademark represents private, not government, speech entitled to some form of First Amendment protection, and that denying a trademark registration is akin to the government disfavoring the speech being regulated. The Court then examined whether Sec. 2(c) could legally disadvantage the specific “TRUMP TOO SMALL” speech at issue in Elster’s case, and whether the government has an interest in limiting speech on privacy or publicity grounds if that speech involves criticism of government officials.

The Federal Circuit did not decide the matter on whether a trademark is a government subsidy, avoiding the somewhat varying opinions of the Supreme Court on that issue. Instead, the Federal Circuit found that Elster’s mark constituted speech by a private party for which the registration restriction must be tested by the First Amendment. Regardless of whether strict or intermediate scrutiny is applied [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Patent Invalidity Doesn’t Demonstrate Good Faith for Consent Order Violation

by | Mar 10, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US International Trade Commission (ITC) decision upholding a civil penalty for violating a consent order based on a patent that was later found to be invalid. The Court agreed with the ITC that a belief that a patent is invalid does not support a finding of good faith for violating a consent order, even if that belief is later vindicated by invalidation of the patent. DBN Holding, Inc. v. ITC, Case No. 20-2342 (Fed. Cir. March 1, 2022) (Moore, C.J.; Newman, Reyna, JJ.)

In 2012, BriarTek IP instigated a Section 337 investigation at the ITC against DBN based on allegations of infringement of a single patent related to two-way satellite notification devices. That investigation was terminated in early 2013 after DBN agreed by a consent order to not import any infringing devices. Only a month later, however, BriarTek filed a complaint seeking an enforcement action against DBN and asserting that DBN had continued selling its infringing devices in violation of the consent order. A month after that, DBN filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that BriarTek’s asserted patent was invalid. In June 2014, the ITC found that DBN had violated the consent order and imposed a civil penalty of $6.2 million against DBN. Later, in November 2014, the district court granted summary judgment of invalidity of BriarTek’s patent. DBN appealed the ITC’s civil penalty finding and BriarTek appealed the district court’s invalidity finding. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity finding but also affirmed the ITC’s imposition of a civil penalty for violating the consent order even though the patent was later found invalid.

Undeterred, DBN filed a petition in early 2016 asking the ITC to rescind or modify the civil penalty in view of the finding that the asserted patent was invalid. The ITC denied DBN’s petition based on its view that the Federal Circuit’s previous decision constituted res judicata that barred the ITC from reconsidering the civil penalty. DBN again appealed, and the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded to the ITC to decide, in the first instance, whether the civil penalty should be rescinded or modified. On remand, in August 2020, the ITC again denied DBN’s petition. The ITC first rejected DBN’s argument that civil penalties had been modified in similar circumstances, finding that the only identified case where a civil penalty (as opposed to a remedial order) was rescinded was distinguishable because the civil penalty had been negated by a retroactive license while the appeal was still pending. The ITC next analyzed the EPROM factors and concluded that they did not favor rescission or modification. With regard to the first EPROM factor (whether DBN acted in good or bad faith), the ITC held that the invalidity finding had no effect because a belief in invalidity is not one of the factors considered for good faith.

DBN appealed again to the Federal Circuit. The Court agreed with the ITC that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Supplier Can’t Complain when SEP Holder Refuses to License

by | Mar 3, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that an automotive parts supplier did not have constitutional standing to pursue an antitrust lawsuit against standard essential patent (SEP) owners that refused to directly license SEPs to the supplier on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Avanci, LLC et al., Case No. 20-11032 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2022) (Stewart, Ho, Engelhardt, JJ.)

Continental supplies telematic control units that are embedded in connected cars. The telematic control units provide wireless connectivity using 2G, 3G and 4G cellular standards, allowing users to stream music, navigate to destinations and call for emergency assistance directly from cars. Nokia, PanOptis, and Sharp all claim to own or license SEPs essential to the 2G, 3G, and 4G cellular standards set by standard-setting organizations (SSO). In order to facilitate patent licensing, these individual patent holders (along with many others) entered into an agreement with Avanci, which acts as a licensing agent for the patent holders. Under the agreement, Avanci may sell patent licenses only to car manufacturers or original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), both of which are downstream from Continental in the supply chain. The agreement permits the patent holders to individually license their SEPs to suppliers such as Continental at FRAND rates.

Continental unsuccessfully sought a license from Avanci at FRAND rates. According to Avanci, licenses were available to Continental on FRAND terms from individual SEP holders, and Continental did not need SEP licenses since Avanci sells licenses to OEMs that incorporate Continental’s products. Continental sued Avanci and the individual patent holders, arguing that Avanci’s refusal to sell a license to Continental on FRAND terms constituted anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Avanci moved to dismiss the complaint. As to the threshold issue of constitutional standing, Continental presented two theories of injury that it asserted conferred standing. Continental’s first theory of injury was that if Avanci and the individual patent holders succeeded in licensing the OEMs at non-FRAND rates, the royalties owed on those licenses might be passed through to Continental via indemnity agreements. Continental’s second theory of injury was that Avanci and the individual patent holders declined to provide Continental with a license on FRAND terms, and this denial of property was sufficient injury to establish standing. The district court rejected Continental’s first theory but accepted the second theory, finding that Continental’s unsuccessful attempts to obtain licenses on FRAND terms was an injury that conferred constitutional standing. Even though the district court found that Continental had constitutional standing, it dismissed Continental’s Sherman Act claims for lack of antitrust standing and for failure to plausibly plead certain elements. Continental appealed.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that neither of Continental’s theories of injury were sufficient to confer constitutional standing. As to the first alleged injury, the Court agreed with the district court and found that was too speculative since it depended on several layers of decisions by the OEMs—namely, decisions to accept non-FRAND licenses and then invoke indemnification rights against [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Message Received: Service of Complaint by Email Found Sufficient

by | Mar 3, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of default judgment against the defendant because email service of the complaint was proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Viahart, L.L.C. v. He GangPeng, Che Haixing, Aszune, Case No. 21-40166 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2022) (Wiener, Graves, Ho, JJ.)

Viahart manufactures, distributes and retails toys and educational products under registered trademarks. Viahart sued approximately 50 defendants for selling counterfeit products bearing its trademark on several online marketplaces. At the time Viahart filed its complaint, it moved to serve all defendants by email. The district court denied the motion but permitted Viahart to conduct discovery to determine the identities and addresses of the defendants through the online marketplaces. After attempting to obtain contact information for the defendants, Viahart again moved to serve the defendants by email. In the motion, Viahart documented its efforts to serve defendants physically and provided proof of attempted service for various defendants. The district court granted the motion, and Viahart served the defendants via email.

Viahart subsequently moved for entry of default judgment against defendants that failed to appear or otherwise respond to the complaint. The district court granted the default judgment motion and determined that each defaulting defendant was liable for $500,000 each plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The judgment permanently enjoined defendants from using Viahart’s trademarks, competing with Viahart unfairly, and withdrawing any funds from the online marketplaces or payment processors. Three of the defendants—GangPeng, Haixing and Aszune—appealed the judgment, arguing that service was improper, that they were improperly joined with the 50 other defendants and that “there was no trademark infringement.”

The Fifth Circuit found no error in the district court’s entry of default judgment. The Court noted that it reviews the entry of default for an abuse of discretion and the underlying factual determinations for clear error. The Court determine that Viahart properly complied with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in its attempts to serve GangPeng, including documenting its attempts to personally serve GangPeng and attaching the required affidavits that allowed the district court to authorize substitute service. As for Haixing and Aszune, the Court found that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, email service was appropriate because it was court ordered, was reasonably calculated to notify the defendants and was not prohibited by an international agreement.

The Fifth Circuit rejected the defendants’ misjoinder argument, finding that there was no basis for misjoinder under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 21. The Court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendants were all working together and that their conduct arose out of the same transaction, and therefore joinder was appropriate. Finally, the Court rejected the defendants’ argument that there was “no trademark infringement” because factual questions and unpled affirmative defenses cannot be raised on appeal of a default judgment when they were not presented to the district court. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s default [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Federal Circuit Issues Errata: IPR Estoppel Applies Only to Challenged Claims

by | Mar 3, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an errata to its opinion in California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited, clarifying that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e) does not apply to unasserted claims. California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited, Case Nos. 20-2222; 21-1527 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2022).

In its original opinion, the Court stated that estoppel applies “to all claims and grounds not stated in the IPR but which reasonably could have been included in the petition” (emphasis added). The “claims” portion of this statement appeared to be at odds with the scope of § 315(e), which only applies to patent claims subject to a final written decision (i.e., it does not apply to patent claims that were not subject to the IPR proceeding). To quell any confusion, the Court modified its opinion by deleting the term “claims” from the statement. The Court also made this point clear in its follow-on IPR estoppel decision in Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, in which the Court advised that a petitioner could file separate petitions on a claim-by-claim basis to avoid § 315(e)(1) estoppel.

The full change to the Court’s Caltech opinion is as follows:

Accordingly, we take this opportunity to overrule Shaw and clarify that estoppel applies not just to claims and grounds asserted in the petition and instituted for consideration by the Board, but to all claims and grounds not stated in the IPR petition but which reasonably could have been included in the petition asserted. In a regime in which the Board must institute on all grounds asserted challenged claims and the petition defines the IPR litigation, this interpretation is the only plausible reading of “reasonably could have been raised” and “in the IPR” that gives any meaning to those words.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES