Tag Archives: patent infringement

Patent Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction: Are Patentees Communicating Too Much?

Photo of Derek FreitasBy Derek Freitas on Posted in Patent, Patents
Historically, patentees needed not worry too much about whether their mere pre-suit communications sent from afar into a jurisdiction created personal jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment action. See e.g., Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc., 326 F.3d 1194, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (ruling that cease-and-desist letter sent by patentee into forum did not create … Continue Reading

Decentralized Domains: Metaverse Land Grab

Photo of Lisa Bollinger GehmanPhoto of Kevin WallacePhoto of Deborah A. WilcoxBy Lisa Bollinger Gehman, Kevin Wallace and Deborah A. Wilcox on Posted in Trademark
As the metaverse continues to become a more established marketplace, and consumers become more familiar with non-fungible tokens (NFTs), NFT marketplaces, decentralized domains, bitcoin, crypto wallets and the blockchain, it is no surprise that intellectual property (IP) owners are starting to see an increase in unauthorized uses of their trademarks and copyrights. There is a … Continue Reading

Third-Party Complaints Must Shift Liability—Not Defeat It

Photo of James HattenBy James Hatten on Posted in Patents
A party sued for patent infringement may seek to shift some or all of its liability through an indemnification claim. While a patent infringement defendant may seek to implead an indemnitor under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a recent Eastern District of Kentucky decision is a reminder that third-party complaints are … Continue Reading

USPTO Sanctions Chinese Law Firm for Fraud and Terminates More Than 15,000 US Trademark Applications

Photo of Lisa Bollinger GehmanBy Lisa Bollinger Gehman on Posted in Trademark, USPTO, USPTO Litigation
On Dec. 10, 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a precedential Final Order for Sanctions against Chinese practitioner and law firm Yusha Zhang and Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd. for filing more than 15,000 applications and other submissions that were deemed fraudulent. The USPTO described the mass filings as “[a] scheme … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Requires Prior Art Be Analogous for Anticipation of Design Patents

Photo of Jennifer M. KurczBy Jennifer M. Kurcz on Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent, Patents
Design patents offer valuable protection in a patent portfolio, including conferring different strategic advantages compared to those of utility patents. For example, design patents allow for recovery of “total profits” — not just lost profits or reasonable royalties as provided for infringed utility patents.[1] Likewise, design patents are not subject to attacks under 35 U.S.C. … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Hints at Easier Service of Process on Foreign Defendants

Photo of Cory BarnesBy Cory Barnes on Posted in Federal Circuit, Intellectual Property, Patent, Patents
In a recent decision, In re: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Case. No. 21-165, Dkt. 20, the Federal Circuit denied China-based smartphone maker OnePlus’ petition for mandamus seeking to direct a Western District of Texas court (Judge Alan Albright) to dismiss the five underlying patent infringement actions for insufficient service of process. The Federal Circuit … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Disregards ‘Manipulative Activities’ of Plaintiffs in Deciding Venue Transfer

Photo of Jeffrey LyonsBy Jeffrey Lyons on Posted in Patent
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential opinion discussing plaintiffs’ attempts to influence venue through reliance on a licensing agreement that purported to limit where a patent infringement suit “might have been brought.” See In re Samsung Electronics Co., Case Nos. 2021-139, 2021-140 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2021). In … Continue Reading

Podcast: When Fixing One Problem Creates Another: How Patent Infringement Arises Out of Product Repairs

Photo of Aaron RabinowitzBy Aaron Rabinowitz on Posted in Patents, Podcast
Various products are subject to systems (e.g., purchase agreements) under which product purchasers and third parties are prevented from repairing the products and the only way to repair the product is to proceed through an authorized vendor or the original manufacturer. Manufacturers often favor such systems, as the systems (1) allow the manufacturers to obtain additional … Continue Reading

Intellectual Ventures v. Motorola: Use = Benefit for the Purposes of System Claims Infringement

By Suzanne Alton de Eraso on Posted in Patent
On Sept. 13, 2017, the United States District Court for the Federal Circuit clarified the meaning of the term “use” as it applies to system claims in patent infringement actions. In doing so, the court held that an infringer must benefit from all elements of a system claim in order to infringe, reversing and remanding … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Suggests Solution to Patent Owner’s Dilemma When Applicant for Biosimilar Product Refuses Discovery

By Allen Sokal on Posted in Uncategorized
In Amgen, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-2179 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit suggested what an owner of a reference product suing an applicant for a biosimilar under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) must do when the applicant refuses discovery that the patent owner needs to … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Announces ‘Uniform and Automatic’ Rule for Patent Exhaustion

By Samuel McMahon on Posted in Patent
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 30, issued an opinion in Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., No. 15–1189 (S. Ct. May 30, 2017), [hereafter “Lexmark”], reversing the Federal Circuit on two aspects of the patent exhaustion doctrine and redefining the boundaries of the rights afforded a patentee under the Patent Act. Chief Justice … Continue Reading

In Case of First Impression, Federal Circuit Rules that a Patent Owner’s Statements in an IPR Proceeding Can Create Prosecution Disclaimer

By Allen Sokal on Posted in Patent
  In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit ruled that a patent owner’s statements during an inter partes review (IPR), even if before an institution decision, can create prosecution disclaimer. After the patent owner filed suit, the defendant filed two petitions for IPR. In … Continue Reading

The Continuing “Evolution” of Alice: a GUI Example

By Samuel McMahon on Posted in Patent
On January 18, 2017, the Federal Circuit, in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 18, 2017) (NEWMAN, J.), issued a non-precedential decision affirming the district court’s holding that claims directed to “[a] method for displaying market information relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded in an … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Divided Infringement, Inducement of Infringement, and Indefiniteness

By Allen Sokal on Posted in Patent
Patent owners will applaud the Federal Circuit’s latest pronouncement on divided infringement, inducement of infringement, and claim definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-2067 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2017). On all three issues, the opinion, authored by Chief Judge Prost and joined by Circuit Judges … Continue Reading

Apportioning for the Standard When Valuing Standards-Essential Patents

Photo of Kevin FlynnBy Kevin Flynn on Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), a national research organization of Australia, recently filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. CSIRO presents the following question: Is the Federal Circuit’s promulgation of rigid legal rules to control the weight to be given by the trier of fact to evidence of patent infringement damages … Continue Reading

Court Decides that ANDA Approved Before Patent Issued Cannot Infringe 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A)

By Allen Sokal on Posted in Patent
Although the Hatch-Waxman Act was passed by Congress decades ago, it still produces new questions. Despite vigorous argument by the patent owner, a district court dismissed a count alleging that the ANDA-filer infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), leaving in place the unchallenged count for infringement under § 271(a). Ferring B.V. v. Actavis, Inc., Civil Action No. … Continue Reading

Supreme Court to Consider Patent Laches in Wake of Copyright Laches Decision

By Allen Sokal and Joshua Branson on Posted in Patent
When we last discussed patent laches here, the Federal Circuit had voted to rehear, en banc, SCA Hygiene Products’ patent infringement claim, which invoked a laches defense. At that time, the Supreme Court had recently decided in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.[1] that laches was not a defense to a copyright infringement claim brought within the … Continue Reading

FTC’s Latest “Pay for Delay” Action Focuses on Noncash “Payments” and New “Product Hopping” Theory of Harm

By Mitchell Oates on Posted in Patent
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint this week against Endo Pharmaceuticals and several generic companies, alleging that these companies entered into anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlements of patent infringement litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act. In its 2013 FTC v. Actavis opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain settlements involving “reverse payments” may … Continue Reading

Filing an ANDA May Expose Generic Manufacturers to Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction in Patent Infringement Suits

Photo of Laura GordonBy Laura Gordon on Posted in Patent
On March 18, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s ruling in two companion cases that West Virginia-based defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Delaware. Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 2015-1456 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2016); AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 2015-1460 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Upholds Inequitable Conduct Ruling in Ohio Willow Wood Company

By Joshua Branson on Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent
In the latest iteration of Ohio Willow Wood Company[1] (OWW), the Federal Circuit upheld a district court ruling of inequitable conduct against OWW despite the presence of a litigation screen. The Federal Circuit had affirmed summary judgment on invalidity, reversed a summary judgment ruling of no inequitable conduct, and remanded the case to the Southern … Continue Reading

Addition Through Subtraction, Broadening Reissue Upheld in Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 2014-5082 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

By Shannon McCue on Posted in Patent
The Zoltek versus the United States case might be characterized as if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again…and then try one more time. Zoltek took three trips to the Federal Circuit before having the validity of its patent for materials used in the B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter planes confirmed. Even before filing … Continue Reading
LexBlog