Patent Litigation

Subscribe to Patent Litigation via RSS
Proposed Framework Isn’t Just About Fixing 101

Since Wednesday’s release of a proposed 101 framework, some have mistakenly dismissed its legislative viability as failing to account for the interests of Big Tech — nothing could be further from the truth.

The proposal is the result of months of negotiations with the major patent stakeholders, most notably the Bio/Pharma and Tech lobbies. While the Bio/Pharma side would greatly benefit from a broadening of patent eligibility (such as proposed) to more readily secure patent protection for technologies such as medical diagnostics, the Tech Lobby has largely opposed such as it leverages 101 to fight back against abstract patent claims. To bridge this divide, the framework presents a narrowing provision that will primarily impact the claim scope of patents asserted against Tech.
Continue Reading 101 Legislative Proposal Includes Provision to Narrow Functional Claims

Mere Existence of JDG Found to be Enough

It can be an uphill battle to secure additional discovery at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) given the “interests of justice” standard of IPR proceedings. For this reason, Patent Owners seeking discovery on petitioner relationships — to discover unnamed parties in RPI/privity disputes — are frequently turned away absent “smoking gun” evidence of such a relationship.

However, a recent decision of the Board appears to take a far more liberal view of multi-defendant relationships where a Joint Defense Group (JDG) is known to exist.
Continue Reading PTAB Discovery of JDG Agreements

POPR Disclaimer Dooms Infringement

Some weeks back I explained the varied uses of Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) trial evidence in district court trial records. However, it is not necessary for a trial to occur for patent challengers to create litigation value. For example, often times a petition will apply prior art that operates in a similar fashion to the accused product.  In distinguishing that art, the Patent Owner is effectively arguing against infringement.

In such cases, a failed AIA trial petition (art distinguished) can result in ultimate victory on the ligation side.
Continue Reading When Losing is Winning at the PTAB

PatentsPostGrant.com April Webinar

There is no consensus amongst the courts and commentators as to how SEPs should be valued. This has led to an increasingly complex legal thicket as patented standards become more prevalent across once disparate products and technologies. The difficulties with valuation of SEPs, determining FRAND rates, and complying with FRAND obligations, creates…

Timing of Estoppel Unimportant

Last week in Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc., Nos. 14-1289-RGA, 14-1494-RGA, 15-0078-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2019), (here) the court addressed a motion to estop defendants from asserting invalidity arguments based on prior art references already presented at trial. The motion argued that, in related IPR proceedings brought while litigation was pending, the same defendants challenged and failed to prove the unpatentability of overlapping claims. The Board’s Final Written Decision (FWD) issued during the appeal. (later remanded back to D.Del)

Novartis argued that, irrespective of the timing of the FWD, that the invalidity defenses and counterclaims presented at trial by defendants should be estopped.
Continue Reading PTAB Estoppel Thwarts Post-Trial Invalidity Consideration

Unchallenged Claim Falls on Summary Judgement

Back in 2016, I flagged a few district court decisions that leveraged Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) fact-finding on summary determination. These decisions weighed the fact finding of the expert agency as “compelling evidence” and noted the Board”s “expertise in evaluating prior art and assessing patent validity.”  While crediting the fact finding on common technical issues, these decisions stopped short of finding outright issue preclusion based upon the earlier PTAB proceeding.

However in some instances, PTAB determinations might be leveraged to attack claims that slipped through the PTAB net.
Continue Reading PTAB Collateral Estoppel as Summary Judgment Tool

Burden on Patent Owner to Show Product Manual Available

Does the use of a printed manual at the PTAB foreclose later use of the underlying product in litigation? We know from cases like In Star EnviroTech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC et. al., 8-12-cv-01861 (CACD January 29, 2015, Order) that where a product is superior to a publication in terms of relevant detail, it is considered outside of the reach of 315(e) estoppel.

But what about where the product is the same as a manual that could have been used in the IPR?
Continue Reading Avoiding PTAB Estoppel with Physical Product Combinations

PatentsPostGrant.com March Webinar

Derivation proceedings have yet to be instituted in number at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, but that is not due to a dearth of such disputes. Quite the contrary, in-house counsel increasingly find themselves grappling with a multitude of disparate legal considerations relative to departing employees in the First-Inventor-to-File era. Protecting…

Estopping a Winning Argument?

One of the stranger developments of recent months has been the interpretation of PTAB estoppel (315(e)(2)) to foreclose a petitioner from pursuing arguments in a district court that were successful at the PTAB. That is, a petitioner that has successfully defeated claims at the PTAB, and has received a Final Written Decision (FWD) explaining the same, is thereafter estopped from making the same successful arguments in court.

Earlier this month, the government supported this position in an amicus brief to the Federal Circuit in BTG v. Amneal. In it’s brief, the government explains that its interpretation leads to the “counterintuitive result that the district court would not be able to consider invalidity arguments that the Board found persuasive.”

Aside from interpreting the statute to be “counterintuitive” in the first instance, which is canon of sorts in statutory construction, it also requires one to construe estoppel as somehow guarding against consistency.
Continue Reading PTAB Estoppel as a Sword and Shield?

Subcommittee to Tackle 101?

Late last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced the formation of an Intellectual Property (IP) Subcommittee. The Senate Judiciary has not had an active IP Subcommittee for decades (unlike the House).

Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) were announced as Chairman and Ranking Member of the IP Subcommittee. You may remember these same senators conducting a closed-door meeting with larger stakeholders (Tech and Bio/Pharma) last December on the topic of patent subject matter eligibility (35 U.S.C. § 101). On the heels of the USPTO’s revised patent eligibility guidelines, it appears that the stars may finally be aligning for meaningful 101 reform.
Continue Reading Senate Judiciary Leaders Resurrect Long Dormant IP Subcommittee