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

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

Third-Party Licensing Information May Be Exception to General Right of Public Access to Court Records

by | Feb 24, 2022 |

In a second appeal relating to sealing third-party licensing information, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s order denying a motion to seal because the district court failed to follow the Federal Circuit’s previous instruction to make particularized determinations regarding the information. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 21-1568 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2022) (Lourie, Cunningham, JJ.) (Mayer, J., dissenting).

In a previous decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to seal with regard to information pertaining to Uniloc but vacated and remanded the denial of the motion to seal with regard to certain third-party licensing information. The Court instructed the district court to “make particularized determinations as to whether and, if so, to what extent, the materials of each of these [third] parties should be made public.”

On remand, the district court again denied the motion to seal the third-party licensing information. The district court made findings regarding the relative weight of the public’s interest in accessing judicial records, including patent licensing information. It also found that the particular licensing information at issue was relevant to a dispute over Uniloc’s standing to sue. With regard to one particular third party, Uniloc’s financier Fortress Credit Co. LLC, the district court denied the motion to seal because Fortress had not complied with Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) of the Northern District of California, which requires that a supporting declaration be filed. Uniloc appealed a second time.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court failed to follow its instructions to make particularized determinations regarding whether the third-party licensing information sought to be sealed should be made public. Accordingly, the Court remanded for the district court to carry out the inquiry it had previously ordered.

The Federal Circuit also noted its disagreement with certain statements the district court had made in its order denying the motion to seal. The district court had stated that “[t]he public has an interest in inspecting the valuation of patent rights . . . particularly given secrecy so often plays into the patentee’s advantage in forcing bloated royalties.” The Federal Circuit stated that the district court committed “an error of law in making a blanket ruling that the public has a broad right to licensing information relating to patents.” While the district court had stated that the public has a strong interest in knowing the full extent of the terms and conditions involved in the exercise of its patent rights and in seeing the extent to which the patentee’s exercise of the government grant affects commerce, the Federal Circuit wrote that “[a]bsent an issue raised by the parties concerning license rights and provisions, there is no public interest or entitlement to information concerning consideration for the grant of licenses.” And while the amount Uniloc received in royalties was relevant to the dispute regarding standing, the Court wrote that “that fact can be proved without opening up all the licenses that the court granted [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Multiple Purchasing Options Overpower Use of “Quotation” in Finding Offer for Sale

by | Feb 24, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment of no invalidity under the on-sale bar, finding that the completeness of relevant commercial sale terms, including multiple purchase options, was not an invitation to further negotiate but rather was multiple offers for sale. Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., Case No. 21-1649 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) (Dyk, Reyna, Stoll, JJ.)

Larry Junker designed a sheath that makes it easier for doctors to grasp the sheath during catheter insertion. After designing the sheath, Junker inquired about manufacturing and eventually began a business relationship with James Eddings and his company, Galt Medical, to manufacture the product. Eddings also started a new company, Xentek Medical, to help with the development, manufacture and sale of the product. In January 1999, Eddings, through Xentek, communicated with Boston Scientific Corporation about the sheath products and sent a letter detailing bulk pricing information for the products. The letter concluded by noting Eddings’ appreciation for “the opportunity to provide this quotation.” In February 2000, Junker filed a design patent directed to an “ornamental design for a handle for introducer sheath.”

Junker sued MedComp in 2013 for infringement of the claimed design. In response, MedComp asserted invalidity, unenforceability and noninfringement defenses, as well as counterclaims. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment for several issues, including invalidity under the on-sale bar. The primary dispute regarding the on-sale bar was whether the January 1999 letter to Boston Scientific was considered an offer for sale of a product embodying the claimed design. The district court found that it was not an offer for sale because it was a preliminary negotiation and not a definite offer. The district court reasoned that although the letter included many specific commercial terms, the repeated use of the word “quotation” and the invitation to discuss specifics rendered the letter a preliminary negotiation. The district court proceeded with a bench trial, ultimately finding in favor of Junker and awarding damages. MedComp appealed.

A patent claim is invalid under § 102(b) if the invention was on sale more than a year before the application date and the claimed invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale and was ready for patenting. There was no dispute that the January 1999 letter was sent more than one year before the patent’s filing and that the claimed design was also ready for patenting. As a result, the only issue on appeal was whether the letter was a commercial offer for sale of the claimed design.

The Federal Circuit determined that the letter was a commercial offer for sale. The Court found that the statement that Xentek was responding to a “request for quotation” signaled that the letter was more than just an unsolicited price quote and was instead a specific offer to take further action. The Court found that the letter contained many necessary terms typical in a commercial contract, including prices for bulk shipments, specific delivery conditions and payment terms. The Court [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Too Much to Say? Word Limits Don’t Prevent Estoppel

by | Feb 24, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) did not err in finding that a petitioner was estopped from maintaining a third inter partes review (IPR) of a patent claim after a final determination of two other IPRs challenging the same claim on different grounds. The Federal Circuit also found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the merits decision of the third IPR because the petitioner lacked statutory authorization to appeal as of the issuance of the prior two final written decisions. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, Case No. 20-1481 (Fed. Cir. Feb 11, 2022) (O’Malley, Clevenger, Stoll, JJ.)

Intuitive Surgical concurrently filed three separate IPR petitions for a patent owned by Ethicon relating to a robotically controlled endoscopic surgical instrument. All three petitions challenged a single claim of the patent, relying on different combinations of prior art references. The Board instituted on two of the petitions at the same time and on the third petition one month later. The Board issued simultaneous final written decisions in the first two IPRs, upholding the patentability of the challenged claim. As the third IPR remained ongoing, Ethicon filed a motion to terminate Intuitive as a party to the IPR, arguing that it was estopped from proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). The Board agreed, terminating Intuitive as a party and issuing a decision upholding the patentability of the challenged claim. Intuitive appealed.

Intuitive argued that § 315(e)(1) should not apply to simultaneously filed petitions. Section § 315(e)(1) precludes a petitioner from maintaining a proceeding before the Board on any ground that it “raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” Intuitive argued that it could not have reasonably raised all of its grounds in one petition because of the 14,000-word limit, and that simultaneously filed petitions do not conflict with the purpose of § 315(e)(1)—to prevent abusive IPR conduct. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that § 315(e)(1) estops a petitioner as to grounds it reasonably could have raised in another IPR, even if the petitions are filed on the same day. The Court went on to note multiple ways around the word limit issue, none of which Intuitive attempted. Intuitive could have sought to consolidate the proceedings or divided its petitions on a claim-by-claim basis instead of by grounds (something which the Court noted is not prohibited by § 315(e)(1)). Intuitive also argued that, under the Court’s decision in Shaw, it was only estopped from raising instituted grounds, but the Court cited its recent decision in California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited, which overruled Shaw, explaining that estoppel applies to all grounds that could have been reasonably included in the petition.

The Federal Circuit also considered whether Intuitive was authorized to pursue an appeal given the termination. Intuitive argued that it had the right to appeal the Board’s decision in the third IPR because it was once a party to the IPR. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Federal Circuit Divided on Whether Skinny Labeling Compliance Precludes Inducement or Supports Equitable Estoppel

by | Feb 24, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a generic drug manufacturer’s petition for en banc review of a panel opinion finding induced infringement liability despite the manufacturer’s adherence to skinny labeling rules, and suggested that equitable estoppel was the appropriate vehicle for considering whether the branded drug manufacturer’s representations to the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) should prevent it from recovering. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Case Nos. 18-1976, -2023 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2022) (per curiam) (Moore, C.J., concurring) (Prost, J., dissenting) (Dyk, J., dissenting) (Reyna, J., dissenting).

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) developed a drug called carvedilol, which it markets (with FDA approval) for three indications: hypertension, left ventricular dysfunction following myocardial infarction (post-MI LVD) and congestive heart failure (CHF). GSK indicated to the FDA that only the CHF indication was under patent. Teva developed a generic version of carvedilol. Commensurate with skinny labeling regulations, Teva carved out from its label the language that GSK indicated was related to the protected CHF indication. Nonetheless, GSK alleged that Teva’s label induced infringement of patents covering the CHF indication. After trial, the jury agreed that the remaining language on Teva’s label would encourage physicians to practice the patented method of treating CHF. Notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law that Teva did not induce infringement. GSK appealed, and a divided panel reinstated the verdict (GSK v. Teva). Teva sought panel rehearing, which was denied, and then sought en banc review.

Out of the nine judges who considered the petition for en banc review, six voted to deny it and three would have granted it. All nine judges expressed concern that Teva should be held liable for induced infringement notwithstanding its compliance with the skinny labeling regulations and GSK’s representation to the FDA that the carved-out language was the only language in the label that would implicate its patents on the CHF indication. The judges differed, however, as to why Teva should not be held liable.

Chief Judge Moore’s concurrence, in which Judges Newman, O’Malley, Taranto, Chen and Stoll joined, affirmed the panel majority’s opinion and endorsed its approach of considering all the evidence. According to Judge Moore, any concerns that the result was unfair to Teva, which had complied with the skinny labeling requirements, should be addressed in the district court’s resolution of the still-pending equitable estoppel defense. In Judge Moore’s view, the facts fit squarely within the doctrine of equitable estoppel: GSK’s representations to the FDA could be seen as misleading Teva into believing that GSK would not seek to enforce its patents against the skinny label (which would omit the language GSK identified as relating to the infringing use); Teva could be seen as having relied on GSK’s representations in obtaining its skinny label and bringing its generic carvedilol product to market; and Teva could be seen as having been greatly prejudiced by later being found liable for GSK’s lost profits, which were greatly in [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Long-Felt Need Not Felt Long Enough to Overcome Obviousness

by | Feb 24, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a finding that patents covering Narcan, a naloxone-based intranasal opioid overdose treatment, were obvious despite evidence of long-felt need. Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Case No. 20-2106 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) (Prost, Stoll, JJ.) (Newman, J., dissenting).

In 2012, during the growing opioid crisis, the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) identified a need for an improved intranasal naloxone treatment that could be FDA-approved and deliver the same amount of naloxone to the blood as an injectable formulation. In 2015, Adapt filed a patent application for Narcan, a method of nasally administering naloxone using about 4 mg of naloxone, benzalkonium chloride (BZK) and three other excipients. After Teva submitted an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to sell a generic version of Narcan, Adapt sued Teva for infringement. After a two-week bench trial, the district court determined that Adapt’s patents were obvious in view of prior art. Adapt appealed.

The Federal Circuit found no error in the district court’s conclusions that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the prior art, that the prior art did not teach away from the claimed combination and that Adapt’s evidence regarding unexpected results, copying and industry skepticism was not probative of nonobviousness. The Court noted that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve on existing treatments because their shortcomings were well known, and the FDA had explicitly identified a need for an improved intranasal product. The claimed excipients also were separately taught in the prior art within the claimed concentration ranges. The Court agreed that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these components to achieve the tonicity and pH required for a drug to be tolerable in the nose and to preserve and stabilize the formulation. While the prior art suggested that BZK causes naloxone degradation, the Court found that this did not teach away from its use because BZK was commonly used in intranasal formulations.

Turning to secondary considerations of nonobviousness, the Federal Circuit affirmed the following:

  • Narcan’s 56% increase in bioavailability was not “evidence of unexpected results” because BZK was a known permeation enhancer expected to increase bioavailability.
  • “[C]opying in the ANDA context is not probative of nonobviousness because . . . bioequivalence is required for FDA approval.”
  • The FDA’s recommendation to increase naloxone dosage in intranasal formulations negated any alleged industry skepticism regarding the higher dosage.

While the Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in finding there was no long-felt but unmet need for an effective intranasal naloxone product, the Court concluded that this error was harmless because the long-felt need began just three years before the patents’ priority date, which was not long enough to overcome the “strong case of obviousness . . . in view of the plethora of prior art.” The Court further agreed that competitors’ alleged failure to obtain FDA approval was not probative of nonobviousness and ultimately affirmed the district [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Specification Sheds Light on Broadest Reasonable Interpretation

by | Feb 17, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) obviousness decision, finding that the Board did not err in restricting the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term based on its use in the specification. Quanergy Systems, Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., Case Nos. 20-2070; -2072 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2022) (Newman, Lourie, O’Malley, JJ.)

Velodyne owns a patent directed to a lidar-based 3D point cloud measuring system that can be used in self-driving vehicles to sense their surroundings. Quanergy petitioned for inter partes review of Velodyne’s patent, challenging the claims as obvious over a Japanese patent application (Mizuno). During the proceedings, the Board construed the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “lidar (light detection and ranging)” to mean “pulsed time-of-flight (ToF) lidar” based on the written description of Velodyne’s patent and found that Mizuno’s system was not a ToF lidar system. The Board also presumed a nexus between the claimed pulsed ToF lidar system and Velodyne’s evidence of commercial success, relying on mapping the features of the claimed ToF lidar system to Velodyne’s commercial products. Based on its obviousness analysis and presumption of nexus, the Board issued final written decisions, finding that Velodyne’s patent was not unpatentable as obvious. Quanergy appealed.

Quanergy raised two arguments on appeal: The Board erred in its construction of the term “lidar,” and the Board erred in its obviousness analysis. Addressing claim construction, Quanergy argued that the Board did not use the broadest reasonable interpretation of “lidar” since “lidar” merely requires the use of laser light for detection and ranging, and thus “lidar” includes not only “pulsed ToF lidar” but also triangulation and other detection techniques described in Mizuno. The Federal Circuit rejected Quanergy’s argument, finding that the Board did not err in construing the term “lidar” according to its broadest reasonable interpretation because the written description focuses exclusively on “pulsed ToF lidar.”

Turning to obviousness, Quanergy argued that the Board erred in concluding that Velodyne’s claims were nonobvious over Mizuno because the expert testimony that the Board relied upon focused only on one particular embodiment of Mizuno’s device, which was not directed to a pulsed ToF lidar system. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, finding that the Board did not err because Mizuno described “detect[ing] light reflected at an angle using position or image sensors, neither of which are used in pulsed time-of-flight lidar systems.” Based on this description, the Court found that Mizuno’s device was not a ToF lidar system.

Quanergy also argued that the Board failed to consider the issue of unclaimed features before presuming nexus. Quanergy argued that Velodyne’s evidence of commercial success related to those unclaimed features, such as a 360-degree horizontal field of view, a wide vertical field of view, a dense 3D point cloud and software, all of which were critical and materially impacted the functionality of Velodyne’s products. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, finding that the Board did not err in finding a presumption of nexus [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Precision Is Paramount: Court Enforces Terms of Email Agreement in Settlement

by | Feb 17, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court order enforcing one party’s version of a settlement agreement, finding that version unsupported by the record. The Court found that the other party’s version accurately reflected the parties’ understanding. PlasmaCam, Inc. v. CNCElectronics, LLC, Case No. 21-1689 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2022) (Dyk, Reyna, JJ.) (Newman, J., dissenting).

PlasmaCam and CNCElectronics (CNC) both operate in the precision cutting industry. PlasmaCam is the exclusive licensee of a patent related to precision cutting equipment, and it sued CNC for allegedly infringing the patent. In December 2019, the parties notified the district court that they had settled the case but disputes arose in the process of drafting a formal agreement, particularly with respect to the scope of “covered products” under the settlement license and the scope of a “mutual release.” Although the parties eventually advised the district court that they had reached a complete agreement, disputes remained as to the scope of covered products. On PlasmaCam’s motion, the district court ordered CNC to execute PlasmaCam’s version of the agreement, execute a promissory note contemplated by the agreement and pay any unpaid settlement funds. CNC appealed.

The Federal Circuit first evaluated whether it had jurisdiction. The Court found that it had jurisdiction because the district court’s order was an injunction (since it ordered CNC to specifically perform an action, i.e., execute an agreement and promissory note, and not merely to pay money) and a final judgment (because it resolved all substantial issues between the parties).

The Federal Circuit next considered the negotiations between the parties with regards to the settlement agreement. As to the scope of covered products, the Court found that the parties had reached agreement regarding a definition of “covered products” in an email, even though the scope of the mutual release was still being negotiated. However, the Court found that the agreed definition of “covered products” was different from the one PlasmaCam provided to the Court and the one which the Court had subsequently ordered CNC to adopt. The Court also recognized the parties’ subsequent agreement regarding the mutual release, which both parties had confirmed to the district court. Because the district court had clearly erred by adopting a definition of “covered products” different from the one that was agreed by the parties, the Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the parties’ actual agreement.

Judge Newman dissented. In her view, no agreement had been reached at all, as the parties had apparently continued to disagree as to the scope of key terms.

Practice Note: In this case, the parties’ statements to the district court that they had reached an agreement played a large role in establishing that an agreement had been formed even though there was no single signed document that reflected the agreement and, in some views, there continued to be disputes about important terms. Litigants should be careful not to represent to a court that an agreement has been [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES