Patents Post Grant Blog

Using a Parallel Patent Reexamination as Evidence of Invalidity?

Increasingly, courts are presented with evidence of a parallel patent reexamination and must determine whether/when such evidence is admissible.

Admissibility of evidence is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”).  In recent cases, where the admissibility of evidence of concurrent reexamination proceedings has been offered with respect to the ultimate question of validity, patentees have attempted to use three rules of evidence to exclude such evidence, FRE 402, FRE 403, and FRE 802.

FRE 402 excludes irrelevant evidence.  Patentees, hoping to keep evidence of concurrent reexamination proceedings out of the litigation and away from the jury, have argued that this evidence is irrelevant and should be excluded under FRE 402.  Several courts have agreed.  Read the rest of this entry »

Monsanto Co. v. Geerston Seed Farms

In the recent Supreme Court case of Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, the Court shed some additional light on how district courts should assess the factors required to determine whether to impose an injunction.  The Monsanto decision did not concern patents, however it raises some interesting issues that would apply to injunctions in the patent context, particularly when a patent is found to be infringed in a district court litigation, but is also under concurrent reexamination.  See our earlier discussion of the use of patent reexamination to defeat an injunction for more information on this issue. 

Specifically, the Monsanto decision noted that “[a]n injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course.  If a less drastic remedy … was sufficient to redress respondents’ injury, no recourse to the additional and extraordinary relief of an injunction was warranted.”  Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 177 L. Ed. 2d 461, 481 (June 21, 2010).

In Monsanto, applying the traditional four-factor test for injunctions, the Supreme Court found that the District Court had abused its discretion in enjoining a federal administrative agency from deregulating a species of plant pending the completion of an environmental impact statement.  Id. at 481.  The Court felt that simply vacating the federal administrative entity’s decision could redress Respondents’ injury, thus it was unnecessary to resort to the “additional and extraordinary relief of an injunction.”  Id.

The potential effect of Monsanto on patent litigation involving concurrent reexamination was not lost on patent practitioners.  Just a few short weeks after the decision in Monsanto, in an amicus brief to the Federal Circuit, Verizon Communications, called attention to Monsanto’s aversion to injunctions.  Br. for Verizon Commc’n at 4, Tivo, Inc. v. Echostar Corp., No. 2009-1374 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2010). Read the rest of this entry »

In our February series on the use of reexamination evidence in concurrent litigation, specifically “Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation? (Part III of IV),” we observed that some courts are, at best, ambivalent about the presentation of evidence pertaining to a related patent reexamination for rebutting a charge of willful infringement. Those courts typically express concern that juries may become prejudiced or confused if they learn that the same agency that originally issued the patent — the PTO — has declared that a substantial new question patentability exists or has rejected the patent’s claims.

Notwithstanding those potential problems, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas may soon hear that three claims of the patent-in-suit currently stand rejected in reexamination proceedings. Read the rest of this entry »

Admissibility in Litigation?

Courts have recently been faced with the issue of whether evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings should be considered at trial.  In our prior posts, “Is Evidence of Parallel Reexamination Proceedings Admissible at Trial? (Parts I, II and III)”, we discussed using pending reexamination proceedings to support invalidity contentions, prove inequitable conduct, and rebut allegations of willful infringement.  Accused infringers have also attempted to use evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings to support and oppose motions for preliminary injunction.

Reexamination Evidence Used to Support or Oppose Motions for Preliminary Injunction

When deciding to grant or deny a preliminary injunction, the courts consider four factors: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships between the parties; and (4) the public interest.  Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global Inc., 459 F.3d 842, 847 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  To defeat a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, alleged infringers will attempt to attack the infringement, validity, or enforceability of the patent at issue.  Specifically, to diminish likelihood of success on the merits with regard to a patent’s validity, accused infringers have attempted to introduce evidence that the patent is undergoing parallel reexamination proceedings. Read the rest of this entry »

Admissibility in Litigation?

As a result of the popularity of reexamination, courts are frequently faced with the issue of whether evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings should be considered at trial.  In our previous posts, “Is Evidence of Parallel Reexamination Proceedings Admissible at Trial? (Parts I and II),” we discussed using pending reexamination proceedings to support invalidity contentions and prove inequitable conduct.  Accused infringers have also attempted to use evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings to rebut allegations of willful infringement.

Reexamination Evidence Used to Rebut Willfulness

Willful infringement exists where an accused infringer acted “despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent” and the “objectively defined risk (determined by the record developed in the infringement proceeding) was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”  In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Thus in order for willful infringement to be found, the accused infringer must have known or should have known that the relevant patent was valid.  Willfulness is to be evaluated “under the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 1369.  Thus, alleged infringers accused of willful infringement have asked the court to consider the existence of pending reexamination proceedings.  The theory asserted by alleged infringers is typically a variant of the following: where the PTO has granted a request for reexamination, and thus concluded that substantial questions of patentability exist, an alleged infringer could not have acted “despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.”  In other words, where the PTO has called into question the validity of the patent by granting reexamination, any infringement thereafter could not have been willful. Read the rest of this entry »

Admissibility in Litigation?

 

Courts have recently been faced with the issue of whether evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings should be considered at trial.  In our prior post, “Is Evidence of Parallel Reexamination Proceedings Admissible at Trial? (Part I of IV)”, we discussed using pending reexamination proceedings to support invalidity contentions.  Accused infringers have also attempted to use evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings to prove inequitable conduct on the part of the patentee. Read the rest of this entry »

Admissibility in Litigation?

Several courts have recently been faced with the issue of whether evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings should be admissible at trial. Parties in these cases have attempted to use the existence of pending reexamination proceedings to prove or disprove invalidity, inequitable conduct, and willful infringement. Opponents generally argue that evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and/or contrary to the statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.

Presented with both points of view, the rulings of courts vary, and whether this evidence is allowed tends to depend on the circumstances of the case. Many courts quickly reject Read the rest of this entry »