procedure Archives

Noncompulsory Counterclaims Don’t Confer Appellate Jurisdiction

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that it does not have appellate jurisdiction to review noncompulsory patent counterclaims in a case otherwise unrelated to the originally asserted patents. Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE, Case No. 22-1286 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2023) (nonprecedential) (Lourie, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

Teradata makes and sells data warehouse systems and services. SAP develops and sells software. The two companies began collaborating while SAP was simultaneously developing its own database (HANA) and component software. SAP eventually informed Teradata that it would stop selling certain Teradata products. Teradata sued SAP, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets on the theory that SAP used Teradata’s proprietary information to create HANA. Teradata also alleged various antitrust violations, arguing that SAP “illegally tied” HANA and HANA’s supporting software. In response, SAP filed counterclaims against Teradata for allegedly infringing SAP patents related to database organization and optimization. On Teradata’s motion, the district court agreed to sever one of the four patent infringement claims but allowed the others to proceed. The district court reasoned that Teradata’s claims and SAP’s counterclaims all arose from “the same transaction or occurrence,” namely SAP’s development of HANA.

The district court granted summary judgment to SAP on Teradata’s antitrust and technical trade secret claims and stayed proceedings on Teradata’s business trade secret claim and to Teradata on SAP’s patent counterclaims. Teradata appealed to the Federal Circuit.

SAP moved to transfer the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Federal Circuit denied the motion but instructed the parties to address the jurisdictional issue in the merits brief. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) grants the Federal Circuit exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final decisions in which a party claims or asserts a compulsory counterclaim related to patents. As it relates to this case, the issue was whether SAP’s patent infringement counterclaims were “compulsory,” meaning SAP would be unable to later sue on these patent infringement allegations “if it did not press them in this action.”

The Federal Circuit began by looking at Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13(a), which states that a counterclaim is “compulsory” if it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as a plaintiff’s claim. The Court explained that it uses three tests to determine whether the transaction or occurrence is sufficiently related between the claim and counterclaim:

Whether the legal and factual issues are substantially the same
Whether the evidence will be substantially the same
Whether there is “a logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim.”

Taken together, these tests essentially ask if there is substantial overlap between what the plaintiff and the defendant must establish to succeed on the claim and counterclaim, respectively.

The Federal Circuit found that the first two tests clearly weighed against SAP’s counterclaim being compulsory. While an understanding of the accused products and alleged trade secrets would be necessary for both the claim and the counterclaim, “same-field overlap” is not enough to make the issues or necessary evidence “substantially the same.”

As to the third test, the Federal Circuit found [...]

Continue Reading

New Claim Construction in Patent Owner’s Post-Initiation IPR Response? Sure, Charge Away

Addressing the issue of new claim constructions presented by a patent owner after the institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a petitioner is entitled to argue and present evidence under the new construction so long as it relies on the same prior art embodiments used in the petition. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 22-1532 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) (Dyk, Lourie, and Taranto, JJ.)

Medtronic owns two patents directed to the transcutaneous charging of implanted medical devices via inductive coupling between a primary coil in an external charger and a secondary coil in the implanted device. The relevant claims of each patent require the external charger’s power to be automatically varied based on “a value associated with the current passing through the internal power source” (the value limitation) and “a measured current associated with the current passing through the internal power source” (the measured current limitation).

Axonics filed two IPR petitions challenging Medtronic’s patents, arguing that the claims were anticipated by three prior art references. Axonics’s petitions did not propose any express claim constructions, but its claim charts stated that the measured current limitation simply narrows the “value” in the value limitation to “measured current” and does not require a separate measurement. Under this “one-input” construction, both limitations would be satisfied if the external power source automatically varied its power output based on the implanted device’s current. In its preliminary response, Medtronic agreed that while claim construction was not necessary, the prior art failed to anticipate the claimed device under the one-input construction. In its institutional decision, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board agreed that “no term requires express construction.”

In its patent owner response, Medtronic (for the first time) advanced a new claim construction, arguing that the value limitation and the measured current limitation required separate inputs (the two-input construction). In Axonics’ reply, it defended the one-input construction and further argued that the three prior art references also disclosed the claimed device under the two-input construction. In support of its reply, Axonics submitted a supplemental expert declaration citing additional disclosures in the prior art references pertaining to the same embodiments relied upon in the petition. Medtronic argued that it would be prejudicial for the Board to consider Axonics’ new reply arguments without providing Medtronic an opportunity to submit a supplemental expert declaration. Medtronic, however, did not seek leave to submit a new declaration.

In its final written decision, the Board adopted the two-input construction and declined to consider Axonics’ arguments and evidence under the new construction, considering them to be improper reply arguments. Axonics appealed.

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that a petition is required to identify “in writing and with particularity…the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds.” To that end, a petitioner may not submit new evidence or arguments in a reply that could have been raised earlier but may respond to new arguments [...]

Continue Reading