Patents Post Grant Blog

Discovery Practice in Post Grant Patent Proceedings

In patent litigation before the federal district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC), parties are obligated to preserve and prevent the destruction of potentially relevant information. This duty often commences as soon as litigation is reasonably foreseeable. Many courts also extend the duty to counsel for the litigants and require that counsel take affirmative steps to ensure that their clients are aware of, and take steps to comply with, the duty to preserve documents. As a result, counsel typically consult with their clients regarding this duty and provide their clients with a “litigation hold” letter that explains the measures the client should undertake to preserve potentially relevant information.

The new post grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR) procedures created by the America Invents Act are adversarial proceedings in which the parties may take limited discovery from one another. The question arises: are the parties to PGR and IPR proceedings under a duty to preserve potentially relevant information? 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 »

When evaluating a request to stay litigation pending reexamination, district courts generally consider three factors: (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in the litigation and facilitate the trial of that case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and a trial date is set.

In an recent opinion, U.S. Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron denied defendants’ motion to stay litigation pending ex parte reexamination because, among other reasons, the reexamination proceedings could not streamline the case. J. Blazek SKLO Podebrady s.r.o. v. Burton Int’l Enterprises, Case no. 08-cv-2354 (D. Minn. June 11, 2010).  At first blush, Judge Mayeron’s rationale for denying the stay seemed illogical as it is certainly the case that, cancellation or amendment of the claims in the patents under reexamination could moot issues of validity, enforceability, infringement, and even damages.

Upon closer inspection, however, this case presents an unusual set of facts in that the 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 »

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Florida cited to the PTO’s Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data in denying an accused infringer’s request for a stay pending reexamination of the patent-in-suit. Fusilamp, LLC v. Littlefuse, Inc., Case No. 10-20528 (S.D. Fla. June 7, 2010). Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga pointed out that statistics show that “the reexamination process takes on average 25.4 months to complete, and another 24 months on average for appeals.” Defendant Littlefuse had filed its request for ex parte reexamination prior to the commencement of the district court action. Although judicial economy favored a stay, Judge Altonaga found the uncertainty in the length of reexamination proceedings disconcerting: “the length of the stay, if issued in this case, appears to be indefinite, and as such, is immoderate and unlawful.”

Previously, we explored what types of amendments to claims under post-grant review can trigger intervening rights.

As you may recall, claim amendments in current post grant proceedings at the USPTO (i.e., reexamination/reissue) create intervening rights. 35 U.S.C. 307 (ex parte) and 35 U.S.C. 316 (inter partes) describe the impact of amending claims in patent reexamination, incorporating 35 USC 252 (relating to intervening rights in reissue applications). In essence, the doctrine of intervening rights forecloses the recovery of past damages for patent infringement if a claim is amended after issuance of the patent.

The case of Kim v. The Earthgrains Co., k/n/a Sara Lee Bakery Group Inc., 01-cv-3895 (N.D. Ill.), presented the issue of whether a change in the transitional phrase (i.e., legally operative terms) of a patent claim could trigger intervening rights. Read the rest of this entry »

Unlike pre-grant patent prosecution, the submission of declaration evidence under 37 CFR 1.131/132 in patent reexamination is not only common, but the norm. This is due to the fact that there are no opportunities to continue patent reexamination via RCE as in pre-grant prosecution. Likewise, amending claims in patent reexamination is problematic as the Patent Holder may surrender past damages under the doctrine of intervening rights. Where a Patent Holder has invested significant time and money in enforcing their portfolio, intervening rights are of paramount concern. As such, convincing the USPTO of patentability without amendment typically requires more than attorney argument, hence the heightened importance of declaration practice in patent reexamination.

A threshold issue in patent reexaminations concurrent with litigation is whether or not the declarant should be the same expert who is expected to testify at trial, or a new expert retained for reexamination purposes only. This decision is affected by several factors, including the risk of two experts taking inconsistent positions and the likelihood that the declarant in the reexamination will be deposed. 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 »