IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
US Court of Appeals
Subscribe to US Court of Appeals's Posts

Back to the Future: Prior Third-Party Settlement Doesn’t Impact Future Trademark Licensees

by | Sep 7, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that under certain circumstances a trademark licensee can bring a claim against a third party for unfair competition under the Lanham Act even if the licensing agreement does not expressly authorize it to do so. Overhead Door Company of Kansas City v. OGD Equipment Company, LLC, Case No. 22-10985 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2023) (Branch, Brasher, JJ.; Winsor, Dist. J., sitting by designation).

This appeal involved three parties: D.H. Pace Company, Overhead Door Corporation and Overhead Garage Door (OGD). All three companies are involved in selling and servicing garage doors. Pace is a licensee of Overhead. Under its license, Pace is permitted to advertise and promote the trade name OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY. OGD is a competitor of Overhead and Pace. Prior to the current appeal, Overhead and OGD had been involved in litigation involving OGD’s alleged trademark infringement and unfair trade practices, which resulted in a settlement. As a part of the settlement, OGD and Overhead could not bring suits against each other. However, the settlement terms were not expressly binding on any current or future licensees of Overhead.

In the current litigation, Pace filed suit against OGD for unfair competition in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices and various state trademark infringement violations. Pace alleged that OGD was leading consumers to believe that it was the same company as, or was affiliated with, Overhead (Pace’s licensor). In response, OGD moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The district court ruled that the licensing agreement between Pace and Overhead was a contractual bar to relief because the agreement did not affirmatively give Pace the right to sue. The district court also ruled that as a non-exclusive licensee, Pace lacked standing to bring its suit. The district court held that because Pace’s trademark rights were derived from a licensing agreement with Overhead, by discharging rights in the prior settlement with OGD, Overhead also discharged Pace’s right to sue.

Through a de novo review, the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Pace. As the district court recognized, under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, parties other than the owner of the mark can bring suit, but here the district court barred Pace’s claims based on the licensing agreement, Pace’s status as a non-exclusive licensee and the settlement agreement between OGD and Overhead. In reversing, the Eleventh Circuit held that none of these reasons was sufficient to bar Pace’s claims.

According to the Eleventh Circuit, the licensing agreement did not bar Pace from suing since there were no contractual term imposing a bar. While a licensee’s right to sue can be restricted, there was nothing in the licensing agreement at issue that limited Pace’s right to sue. The license agreement did not address trademark enforcement or either party’s ability to sue.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that the district court misread the Eleventh Circuit’s 2019 decision in Kroma Makeup v. Boldface [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Rimini, Meeny, Miny, Moe: Ninth Circuit Affirms Most PI Violation Findings, Reverses Others

by | Sep 7, 2023 |

Addressing the boundaries of a permanent injunction awarded to a major software developer, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely agreed that the defending developer was in contempt for violating the order but reversed on certain issues where the district court overextended the injunction. Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., Case No. 22-15188 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2023) (Bybee, Bumatay, JJ.; Bennett, Dist. J., sitting by designation).

Oracle creates enterprise software to carry out business functions. Oracle’s customers buy licenses to its products, which require updates and technical support. These necessary support services can be outsourced to third-party vendors, such as Rimini.

This case is the byproduct of a 13-year battle that Oracle initiated on the grounds that Rimini’s support services constituted copyright infringement. Rimini made generic versions of Oracle software on Rimini computers to develop updates and bug fixes (local hosting) and supported clients by using development environments created pursuant to a different client’s license (cross-use). After multiple appeals and remands, the case resulted in a permanent injunction prohibiting Rimini from reproducing or cross-using Oracle software unless pursuant to a customer license. Rimini revamped its support services and sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. After Oracle was permitted to conduct discovery into potential violations of the injunction, the district court held a bench trial on 10 possible violations. The district court found Rimini in contempt for five of the 10 alleged violations (issues 1–4 and 8). On two others (issues 7 and 9), the district court found no contempt but enjoined Rimini from continuing a specific copying practice. The district court sanctioned Rimini $630,000, calculated according to statutory damages available under the Copyright Act.

Rimini appealed each contempt finding, the injunction and the sanctions.

First, the Ninth Circuit addressed the five contempt findings, sorted into three groups:

  • Local hosting (issue 1)
  • Cross-use (issues 2–4)
  • Database copying (issue 8).

On issue 1, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The lower court had found that Rimini received copyrighted files from its clients. Instead of following internal policies requiring them to quarantine or report these files, Rimini employees forwarded and saved them locally. Based on the plain language of the PI, this was a clear violation.

On issues 2–4, regarding cross-use, the Ninth Circuit also affirmed. Rimini used one client’s environment to modify and test updates that the client did not need and were intended for other clients. Since the injunction specifically prohibited cross-use, this was a violation. Rimini lodged multiple failed arguments, including that the injunction only prohibited cross-use in “generic” (non-client) environments, so its use of one client’s environment to support another client was allowed. The Court disagreed that the injunction was so specific.

On issue 8 (database copying), however, the Ninth Circuit reversed. The district court held Rimini in contempt for making copies of an Oracle database file on Rimini systems. When the client uploaded the file to Salesforce for Rimini to provide technical assistance, a copy was automatically created on Rimini’s system. Here, the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

The End Is Not So Near: Patent Term Adjustments Count in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Determinations

by | Sep 7, 2023 |

Addressing for the first time how patent term adjustments (PTAs) interact with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that when members of a patent family have different expiration dates due to PTAs, the earlier expiring family members can be used as a basis for an ODP invalidity challenge against the later expiring family members. In re Cellect, LLC, Case Nos. 2022-1293; -1294; -1295; -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna, JJ.)

Cellect owns several patents directed to devices with image sensors, such as personal digital assistant devices and phones. Each patent claims priority from a single application. None of the patents were subject to a terminal disclaimer, and each was granted PTA under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) because of PTO delay during prosecution. Had the patents not been granted PTA, each one would have expired on the same date as the original application.

After Cellect sued for infringement, the defendant requested ex parte reexaminations and asserted that the patents were unpatentable based on ODP. During the reexaminations, the Examiner “determin[ed] that the challenged claims were obvious variants of Cellect’s prior-expiring reference patent claims” because “although the ODP invalidating reference patents form a network across the four ex parte reexamination proceedings, all invalidated claims can be traced back to the single family member [now expired] patent that did not receive a grant of PTA.” The Patent Trial & Appeal Board affirmed the Examiner’s finding. Cellect appealed.

The Federal Circuit began with the inquiry for determining unpatentability based on ODP and whether, in that context, a patent’s expiration date includes a duly granted PTA under 35 U.S.C. § 154. While the Court recognized that the relevant expiration date for an ODP analysis where a patent received a patent term extension (PTE) is the pre-PTE expiration date, the Court concluded that, in the context of patents that have received PTAs, the relevant expiration date for analyzing ODP is the expiration date accounting for the PTA regardless of whether a terminal disclaimer has been filed. The Court reasoned that when determining whether claims are unpatentable for ODP, PTA and PTE, they “should be treated differently” because each is governed by different statutes that were designed to address different circumstances. While both PTAs and PTEs were intended to recover lost patent terms, PTAs were designed to extend patent terms because of administrative delays in patent processing and preclude the extension of a patent term past a terminal disclaimer. PTEs were designed to extend a patent term because of regulatory delays in product approval and are not foreclosed by a terminal disclaimer. As such, the Court reasoned that not contemplating a PTA when analyzing ODP would “frustrate the clear intent of Congress” because “when a terminal disclaimer has been entered in a patent subject to PTA, no patent (or claim) may be extended beyond the disclaimed expiration date.”

The Federal Circuit next considered whether examiners are required to consider “equitable concerns” such as good faith when [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Cover-Up Isn’t Covered Under VARA

by | Aug 31, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) does not prohibit covering an artist’s mural where there is no damage to the mural. Samuel Kerson v. Vermont Law School, Inc., Case No. 21-2904 (2d. Cir. Aug. 18, 2023) (Livingston, Cabranes, Kovner, JJ.)

In 1993, Samuel Kerson and Vermont Law School entered into a written agreement for Kerson to paint two murals on the walls of the law school’s community center. The completed murals were publicly viewable and depicted several distinct scenes spanning the history of US slavery, from the capture of Africans in their homelands through the abolitionist movement.

Because of complaints from community members regarding how the murals presented Black people, the law school considered options for the murals’ removal. The school decided to conceal the murals behind a barrier of fabric-cushioned acoustic panels. The panels were constructed such that they were suspended approximately two inches away from the murals’ surface and did not touch the murals.

Kerson filed suit seeking to enjoin the installation of the acoustic panels on the theory that they amounted to a violation of his rights under VARA. Under the relevant part of VARA, the author of a “work of visual art” “shall have the right”:

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

 

(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

17 U.S.C. §§ 106A(a)(3)(A)-(B).

In the district court, Kerson argued that blocking the public from viewing his work of art would amount to the “destruction” or “intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification” of the murals. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the law school. Kerson appealed.

Kerson argued that permanently concealing the murals with a solid barrier of acoustic panels modified and thus “destroy[ed]” his work. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that covering a work of art did not amount to “destruction” under VARA. The Court explained that Kerson’s argument did not comport to the conventional understanding of the word “destruction” under the plain meaning of the statute. The acoustic panels were designed to not touch the murals, let alone destroy them.

The Second Circuit also rejected Kerson’s argument that covering a work of art amounts to “modification.” Under VARA, “modification” would entail a change to the work of art that alters some portion of it without radically transforming the whole. For example, an additional brush stroke, erasure of content or the reorganization of a movable component would be a modification of a work of art. Modifications do not include concealing the entire work behind a solid barrier.

The Second Circuit also rejected Kerson’s argument that concealing the murals was [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Don’t Be So Stern: Copying Carries Significant Weight in Assessing Objective Evidence

by | Aug 31, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision invalidating a patent, finding that the Board erred in assessing nexus and weight to be accorded to objective evidence of nonobviousness. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., Case No. 22-1765 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2023) (Moore, Lourie, Cunningham, JJ.)

Volvo Penta owns a patent directed to a tractor-type stern drive for a boat. A stern drive is a type of engine that is mounted in the hull of a boat and connected to a drive unit mounted outside of the hull, typically on the stern. In the industry, this arrangement is often referred to as an inboard/outboard drive. In 2015, Volvo Penta launched its commercial embodiment of the patent called the Forward Drive and was popular particularly for wake surfing and other water sports. The Forward Drive included forward-facing propellers that increased the distance between the propeller and swimmers or surfers compared to prior pulling-type stern drive boats.

In August 2020, Brunswick launched its own drive, the Bravo Four S, which embodies Volvo Penta’s patent. On that same day, Brunswick filed a petition for inter partes review asserting that the challenged claims were anticipated or obvious based on several references, two of which were Kiekhaefer and Brandt. In response, Volvo Penta argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Kiekhaefer and Brandt with a reasonable expectation of success and that the objective indicia of nonobviousness overcame any prima facie case of obviousness. In support, Volvo Penta offered evidence of copying, industry praise, commercial success, skepticism, failure of others and long-felt but unsolved need. Volvo Penta also argued that it was entitled to a presumption of nexus between the objective indicia and the claimed invention, and, even if there was no presumption, there was still nexus.

The Board found that Kiekhaefer did not anticipate the challenged claims, but it would have been obvious to redesign the stern drive of Brandt in light of Kiekhaefer’s outboard motor to arrive at the challenged claims. After finding a motivation to combine (and prima facie obviousness), the Board turned to Volvo Penta’s objective evidence of nonobviousness. The Board first determined that Volvo Penta was not entitled to a presumption of nexus because, even though the Forward Drive and Bravo Four S indisputably embody the challenged claims, Volvo Penta did not make sufficient arguments on coextensiveness. The Board also found that regardless of the presumption, Volvo Penta did not otherwise show nexus because it failed to identify the “unique characteristics” or “merits” of the claimed invention.

Despite finding no nexus, the Board still analyzed the objective evidence and concluded that Volvo Penta’s objective evidence weighed somewhat in favor of nonobviousness but that Brunswick’s strong evidence of obviousness outweighed the objective evidence. The Board therefore concluded that the challenged claims were unpatentable. Volvo Penta appealed.

Volvo Penta raised three primary arguments on appeal:

  1. The Board’s [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

No Two Ways About It: No Disparagement ≠ Teaching Away, Free Samples ≠ Commercial Success

by | Aug 31, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board invalidating two patents: one as anticipated because disclosure of a genus anticipated the claimed species, and the other as obvious because the prior art did not disparage the claimed invention and therefore was not a “teaching away.” The Court also found that free samples cannot be used to show commercial success. Incept LLC v. Palette Life Sciences, Inc., Case Nos. 21-2063; -2065 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2023) (Schall, Taranto, JJ.) (Newman, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).

Incept owns two patents related to improved methods for treating cancer, particularly prostate cancer, using radiation. The patents describe methods of introducing a filler between a radiation-targeted tissue and other tissue to increase the distance between the two and thereby decrease the amount of radiation received by the non-targeted tissue. Palette filed inter partes review petitions against each patent, asserting that the claims of one patent were anticipated and the claims of the other were obvious. Both theories of invalidity relied on the same prior art reference, Wallace. The Board instituted review and ultimately found both patents unpatentable. Incept appealed.

As to the patent that the Board found anticipated, Incept argued that the Board erred legally by “picking and choosing” from the teachings of Wallace to piece together elements. Incept argued that Wallace teaches a genus of millions to billions of possible compositions while its patent claims a species. Thus, according to Incept, the genus had to be defined well enough that a person of ordinary skill could have envisioned each member of the genus.

The Federal Circuit found no legal error in the Board’s anticipation analysis. The Court rejected Incept’s assertion that its patent claimed a species, finding that the patent described a method to inject a composition that had the same general properties as the composition described in Wallace. The Court also found that the Board’s conclusion that Wallace taught biodegradable compositions (where Wallace stated that “a portion of the polymer may be biodegradable”) was supported by substantial evidence and noted that it was not the Court’s duty to reweigh factual determinations.

As to the Board’s obviousness finding of the other patent, Incept alleged that the Board improperly reiterated its anticipation analysis, disregarded statements in Wallace that teach away, did not separately analyze the dependent claims and disregarded evidence of commercial success. The Court was unpersuaded by any of these arguments.

First, the Federal Circuit noted that since the anticipation analysis had no error, it was not improper for the Board to rely upon that analysis for its obviousness determination. The Court noted that the Board relied on the teachings of another piece of prior art concerning the challenged patent’s displacement limitation. The Court also dismissed Incept’s allegation that the motivation to combine analysis was conclusory.

The Federal Circuit rejected Incept’s assertion that Wallace taught away from biodegradable compositions, noting that Wallace provided a preference for an alternative but did not criticize, discredit or [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Uncompleted Building Sold in Bankruptcy Doesn’t Infringe Architect’s Copyright

by | Aug 24, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that there was no actionable infringement where an uncompleted building sold under the authority of a bankruptcy court was later completed. Cornice & Rose International, LLC v. Four Keys, LLC et al., Case No. 22-1976 (8th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023) (Loken, Shepard, Kelly, JJ.) (per curiam). The Court explained that the architectural copyright claims were precluded by the bankruptcy court’s order approving the sale.

McQuillen Place Company retained Cornice & Rose, an architectural firm, to design a building. Cornice created technical drawings for the building and obtained copyrights for its drawings and for the building itself, the tangible embodiment of its design work. When the building was 90% complete, McQuillen halted construction and filed for bankruptcy. During liquidation proceedings, the trustee moved to sell the building to the lender, First Security Bank & Trust Company. Cornice objected to the sale on various grounds, including that its copyright protection in the building itself would be infringed by an order authorizing the sale. In response, First Security Bank suggested language to protect the parties, which the court incorporated into its order authorizing the sale of the uncompleted building, as follows:

Copyright: So long as the Purchaser, or its assignee, or its architect or agents do not use the Plans or Drawings or any work in which Cornice & Rose International, LLC (“C & R”) holds a valid copyright (the C & R Intellectual Property), the Purchaser, or its assignee, may use and occupy the Property, develop the Property, and complete the existing interior and exterior of the Property, free and clear of existing and future claims of C & R, whether for copyright infringement or otherwise. The Purchaser, or its assignee, or its architect or agents may not use the C &R Intellectual Property without first making arrangements satisfactory to C & R for the use of the C & R Intellectual Property. Nothing contained herein shall preclude future claims of copyright infringement resulting from the improper or unauthorized use of the C & R Intellectual Property by the Purchaser, or its assignee, or any third parties.

Cornice filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that under its contract with McQuillen, the license for the use of the building was conditioned on full, complete and timely payment. Because that had not occurred, there was no license for the construction of the building and, therefore, the building was an infringing copy of the architectural work. The following day the bankruptcy court denied the motion. Cornice filed an appeal, which the bankruptcy court dismissed under 1 U.S.C. §363(m) because the sale had been completed.

While the appeal was pending, the trustee sold the building, and First Security Bank assigned its interest to Four Keys, which hired various companies to finish the building. Cornice then sued First Security Bank, its president, Four Keys and others for copyright infringement by finishing the building as an infringing derivative work. Cornice sought a declaratory judgment [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Change in Law Leading to Case Dismissal Doesn’t Preclude Attorneys’ Fees

by | Aug 24, 2023 |

Addressing the symmetrical fee-shifting provision of the Copyright Act and whether a prevailing defendant was entitled to fees even when the plaintiff moved to dismiss the case in response to a change in law, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and remanded the case for reconsideration. Live Face on Web, LLC v. Cremation Society of Illinois, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-1641 (7th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023) (Scudder, Kirsch, Jackson-Akiwumi, JJ.)

The Cremation Society of Illinois and its co-defendants (collectively, CSI) licensed software from Live Face on Web. Live Face on Web then sued CSI for copyright infringement, seeking damages of more than 1,000 times the initial license fee. Five years later, while summary judgment was pending, Live Face on Web moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. “made the defendants’ fair-use defense insurmountable.” The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and CSI filed a motion to recover fees. The court denied the motion for fees, in part because “awarding fees would neither encourage nor discourage other defendants from maintaining valid defenses against copyright claims.” CSI appealed.

The Copyright Act allows prevailing parties to recover costs and fees. The Seventh Circuit examined the nonexclusive factors that guide this analysis:

  • The frivolousness of the lawsuit
  • The losing party’s motivation for bringing or defending the lawsuit
  • The objective unreasonableness of the losing party’s claims
  • The need to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.

The Seventh Circuit noted that the last factor relates to the purpose of the fee-shifting provision: “[b]y encouraging parties to stand on their rights, the Act’s symmetrical fee-shifting provision advances its core purposes.” A successful copyright infringement litigant “encourages others to use the copyright system, fostering further innovation,” whereas a defendant “who successfully protects his rights to use things in the public domain necessarily gives others a license to do the same.” The Court stated that prevailing defendants in particular benefit from a strong presumption that they are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees: “Without an award of attorney’s fees, a defendant faces pressure to abandon his meritorious defenses and throw in the towel because the cost of vindicating his rights (his attorney’s fees) will exceed the private benefit he receives from succeeding (a nonexcludable right to continue doing what he was already doing).”

In this case, the district court reasoned that CSI’s success was due to the change in the law rather than meritorious defenses and, therefore, awarding fees to CSI would not advance or deter any conduct. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, stressing that Live Face on Web did not demonstrate that it would have prevailed but for the Supreme Court’s decision in Google. Moreover, the Court noted that CSI had raised multiple other defenses that were not impacted by Google. In any event, the Court reasoned, “[i]n litigation, both sides accept that as the case evolves, the law might, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Disgorgement of Profits Appropriate Remedy for Breach of Contract, Trademark Infringement

by | Aug 24, 2023 |

In a trademark infringement and breach of contract case involving real estate companies with a shared name, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the trademark owner, including almost $43 million in profit disgorgement. Dewberry Engineers v. Dewberry Group, Case Nos. 22-1622; -1845 (4th Cir. Aug. 9, 2023) (Gregory, Thacker, JJ.) (Quattlebaum, J., dissenting).

Dewberry Engineers and Dewberry Group (formerly Dewberry Capital) operate in the same states, and both provide commercial real estate services. Dewberry Engineers started in the mid-1950s as a civil engineering and surveying firm in northern Virginia. Over time, its business expanded to include real estate development services such as architecture and site development. Dewberry Group similarly provides real estate development services through its affiliates, including the Dewberry Hotel in Charleston, South Carolina.

In 2006, Dewberry Group sent Dewberry Engineers a cease-and-desist letter, asserting that Dewberry Group had “senior common law rights” to use “Dewberry” in real estate. In response, Dewberry Engineers sued Dewberry Group for infringing its federally registered DEWBERRY trademark. That litigation ended in 2007 when the parties entered a confidential settlement agreement (CSA). Among other things, the CSA stated that Dewberry Group:

  • Would not challenge Dewberry Engineers’ trademark registrations
  • Could use its “Dewberry Capital” name except in enumerated geographical areas where it instead must use “DCC”
  • Would use no logo other than its “column” logo.

In 2017, Dewberry Group rebranded and attempted to register DEWBERRY GROUP and other marks, which the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) repeatedly rejected.

In 2020, Dewberry Engineers filed suit claiming breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and Virginia common law. The district court granted summary judgment to Dewberry Engineers on the contract claim, finding that Dewberry Group had violated the unambiguous CSA by changing its logo, among other offenses. The district court also granted summary judgment to Dewberry Engineers on its trademark infringement claim, finding that Dewberry Engineers’ mark was not only valid, it was incontestable since it had been in continuous use for more than five years. The district court also found that the likelihood-of-confusion factors favored infringement. The district court entered a permanent injunction against Dewberry Group’s use of “Dewberry” and granted Dewberry Engineers its attorneys’ fees and profit disgorgement. Because the court believed the tax information Dewberry Group provided did not show the true “economic reality” of the close relationship between Dewberry Group and its affiliates, the disgorgement calculation also included some of Dewberry Group’s affiliated companies’ profits. Dewberry Group appealed, challenging the summary judgment grant, the permanent injunction and the monetary awards.

The Fourth Circuit began by noting that there was “uncontroverted evidence” that Dewberry Group used the DEWBERRY trademark, used a logo other than its column logo and failed to use “DCC” in restricted areas, all in breach of the undisputedly valid CSA. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s finding that Dewberry Group breached the CSA.

The Fourth Circuit next addressed the trademark infringement claim. The Court rejected [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Petitioner Reply May Include New Evidence if Responsive to Patent Owner and Based on Original Legal Contentions

by | Aug 24, 2023 |

Addressing the issue of new invalidity theories offered during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a petitioner does not improperly offer new theories when it merely expands on previously raised arguments and responds to a patent owner’s assertions without advancing a “meaningfully distinct [invalidity] contention.” Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., Case No. 21-1796 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2023) (Moore, C.J.; Reyna, Dyk, JJ.) The Court further concluded that the patent owner waived its new theories argument by raising a general objection that did not identify which theories were allegedly new.

Alere filed an IPR petition challenging a Rembrandt patent directed to test assay devices and methods for testing biological fluids. Alere argued that the claims were obvious over two combinations of prior art references (among other grounds not at issue on appeal): MacKay in view of Charm or May, and Tydings in view of MacKay or Lee-Own. On remand from a previous appeal, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board ordered briefings on all non-instituted grounds set forth in Alere’s petition. Rembrandt filed a patent owner response without an expert declaration. Alere filed a reply attaching a declaration from its expert and responding to arguments raised by Rembrandt in its response and by the Board in its institution decision.

In a sur-reply, Rembrandt generally argued that Alere “resort[ed] to new theories in reply” but did not specifically contest the two combinations at issue while specifically objecting to other allegedly new theories. Relying on Alere’s expert testimony, the Board issued a final written decision finding the claims at issue unpatentable over the MacKay and Tydings combinations. Rembrandt unsuccessfully petitioned for Director rehearing and then appealed the decision, arguing that the Board abused its discretion by relying on Alere’s new theories and evidence and that there was a dearth of substantial evidence to support the Board’s determinations.

The Federal Circuit first considered whether Rembrandt had forfeited its new theories argument by raising a general objection without expressly objecting to the obviousness grounds at issue. Underscoring the fact that Rembrandt had specifically identified and objected to other allegedly new theories, the Court concluded that Rembrandt’s general objection was insufficient and that Rembrandt’s “objection” argument had been forfeited. The Court noted that holding otherwise would be unfair to the parties and the Board because such a general objection could not provide adequate notice.

Even though Rembrandt’s new theories argument had been waived, the Federal Circuit concluded that Alere’s reply arguments did not constitute new theories and evidence. As the Court noted, in its reply a petitioner must identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for each challenge to each claim” and may “only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, . . . patent owner response, or decision on institution.” The Court further explained that a petitioner who asserts previously unidentified prior art disclosures or embodiments in its reply to make a “meaningfully distinct contention” impermissibly raises a [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES