Intellectual Property

Tasked with starting an innovation protection and patent development program at your company but do not know where to begin? This three part series describes the key components to a patent development program for any company, small or large. This second installment in the series describes subject matter for educating the innovator technical team tasked with developing or evaluating potential patentable innovations within a company.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently thwarted an attempt by big tech companies such as Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel, to rid themselves of discretionary denials under the Fintiv factors. While these companies will almost assuredly seek other avenues to dismantle such discretionary denials, last week’s developments are a win for patent owners in the short term.

In "ROHM Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc.", th Federal Circuit held that an arbitrator, not a federal district court, should decide whether a dispute arising from a technology license is subject to mandatory arbitration. Agreeing with a long line of decisions from other circuits, the Federal Circuit found that where an agreement incorporates by reference rules allowing an arbitrator to determine arbitrability, those rules should be given effect and an arbitrator, not a court, should decide whether the dispute is subject to arbitration.

Computer-based inventions – especially in the machine learning (ML), bioinformatics, and artificial intelligence (AI) fields – are susceptible to subject matter eligibility challenges. Subject matter eligibility challenges may prevent a patent application from being granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and may even be asserted to invalidate a patent post-grant. In recent years, the Federal Circuit has implemented a multi-step test to determine whether patent claims would survive a subject matter eligibility challenge.

On November 5, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 21-1154, affirmed a decision from the District Court of New Jersey dismissing a suit brought by Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”) under Rule 12(b)(6) for improper venue as to defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) and Mylan Inc. and for the failure to state a claim against defendant Mylan N.V. Celgene had brought suit after MPI submitted an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Pomalyst used to treat multiple myeloma. In assessing venue, the court held that it was MPI’s ANDA submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and not the sending of a notice letter to Celgene in New Jersey, that was the artificial act of infringement pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act. The district court thus held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that venue in New Jersey was improper.

On September 28, 2021, in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Nos. 2020-1685, -1704, clarified its decision from a prior appeal in the same case to hold that a finding of willful infringement requires only deliberate or intentional infringement, not egregious, wanton, malicious, or bad-faith infringement conduct.

In this final patent owner tip for surviving an instituted IPR we discuss sur-reply strategies. At this point, the Patent Owner has filed its Response, developed all the facts and evidence, and taken and defended expert depositions.

In an interesting recent case of first impression, Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas denied a motion for judgement on the pleadings filed by Defendants Google and YouTube because the asserted patent was terminally disclaimed to two other patents that had been invalidated prior to its issuance. In VideoShare, LLC v. Google, LLC, 6:19-cv-663 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2021) (Albright, J.), the Court rejected the argument that the invalidation of the terminal patents was the “expiration” of the terminal patents, and that the asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,362,341 (“the ’341 patent”) was therefore also necessarily expired because it allegedly shares the expiration date of the terminal patents. Judge Albright concluded that, to the contrary, the prior finding of invalidity of the terminal patents had no impact on the expiry of the terminally-disclaimed ’341 patent.

Recent developments indicate that the UK is a favorable jurisdiction that owners of standard essential patents (“SEP”) can leverage to obtain appropriate SEP rates from what would otherwise be unwilling licensees. Demonstrating the point, a recent order from Justice Meade of the High Court in the sprawling Pan Optis/Unwired Planet SEP dispute with Apple provides an outline to the UK’s approach to handling SEP implementers who are unwilling to commit to court-determined FRAND licenses.

A recent decision by a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel in Canadian Solar Inc., et al v. The Solaria Corporation may have opened the door for aggrieved parties to seek rehearing for any reason, rather than the prescribed situation where the panel “misapprehended or overlooked” some issue in an inter partes review (IPR).

Patent owners searching for an appropriate venue for cases against alleged infringers may be able to point to the activity of an infringer’s agents, based on a new decision from the Eastern District of Texas. In recommending denial of a Netflix motion to dismiss, Magistrate Judge Payne explained that the nature and extent of Netflix’s relationship with internet service providers (“ISPs”) within the district gives rise to proper venue as a regular and established place of business of Netflix.

In our penultimate patent owner tip for surviving an instituted IPR, we turn our discussion to defending the deposition of your expert. At this stage of the proceeding, your Patent Owner Response has been filed, and all the facts and arguments you need have already been developed, including any necessary expert testimony.

In a recent IAM article, Levelling the playing field in ITC patent cases by identifying redesigns to a set deadline, we commented on best practices for ITC complainants to protect their interests against the nascent uptick of redesign submissions at the tail end of fact discovery. Although reasonable minds can differ as to whether the uptick in motion practice is coincidence or a more troubling sign that some respondents are using late redesign disclosures as a vehicle to put complainants at a disadvantage in fast-paced Section 337 proceedings, such late disclosures undoubtedly prejudice complainants’ ability to fully review and assess such disclosures for possible infringement.

In what appears to be a case of first impression, on August 23, 2021 U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a biosimilar applicant’s motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit brought under the Biosimilar Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) against a foreign parent corporation that did not file or sign the relevant abbreviated Biologics License Application (“aBLA”).

In late August of 2021, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of $1.2 billion in favor of Juno Therapeutics and Sloan Kettering Institute because the jury’s finding that four of the asserted patent claims did not lack adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 was not supported by substantial evidence.

The United States FRAND jurisprudence had a recent watershed moment in a decision that is sure to reverberate through the standard essential patent (SEP) world, and specifically SEP litigation in the United States. Earlier this week, a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed a jury verdict that found licensing offers made by Ericsson to HTC for Ericsson’s 4G SEPs complied with Ericsson’s FRAND obligations, the first jury verdict of its kind in the United States.

After an inter partes review (“IPR”) is instituted, a patent owner may move to amend challenged claims to overcome the prior art. Here we provide some further information for patent owners considering ways to amend claims that are challenged in IPR by filing a reissue application or requesting reexamination.