In In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, the first ever appeal of the final written decision from an inter partes review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”), the Federal Circuit decided two novel and fundamental questions arising under the newly enacted IPR proceedings created by the America Invents Act of 2011 (“AIA”). On both issues, the Federal Circuit agreed with the PTO, holding (1) institution decisions by the Board are almost never reviewable on appeal, either interlocutory or after the Board’s final written decision, and (2) that the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard is the proper standard for claim construction in IPR proceedings.
For patent infringement defendants filing an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petition to challenge the validity of the patents asserted against them has become popular, largely because of the high rate of patents rendered invalid as a result of the petitions. Thus, knowing when to file an IPR petition is crucial.
Previously, we discussed the implications of the failure to mark defense on damages prior to the filing of a patent case. In this next article in the series, we examine how allegations of direct and/or indirect infringement, as well as the type of patent claim being asserted (e.g., method, system, or apparatus) can impact the amount of potential damages a patent holder can recover.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. partially modifying the standard of review to be applied by the Federal Circuit when reviewing a district court’s construction of a claim term. Prior to Teva, the Federal Circuit applied a de novo standard for claim construction review. Now, based on the Teva decision, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error” standard for factual questions, and a de novo standard for legal questions when reviewing a claim construction on appeal.
We have previously addressed the Supreme Court’s decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 12-1184, Slip Op. at 7 (2014), which relaxed the standard for awarding attorney’s fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act (“§285”) and ruled that decisions on §285 are entitled to deference on appeal. In the patent litigation realm, the Octane Fitness decision does not seem to have led to an overwhelming trend toward awarding fees. It does, however, beg the question: how has this impacted the standard for awarding attorney’s fees in other types of intellectual property cases, such as trademarks and trade secrets?
Patents claiming inventions which must be used to comply with certain technical standards (for example, the Wi-Fi standard or standards for 3G) are referred to as standards-essential patents or “SEPs”. There has, historically, been little judicial guidance concerning damages in cases where SEPs are implicated. The recent Federal Circuit ruling in Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., finally provides some guidance on the issue of determining damages in such cases. No. 2013-1625, 2014 WL 6804864 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2014). In addition to providing insight on several apportionment issues specific to SEPs, the court also held that simply reciting all Georgia-Pacific factors to a jury is unacceptable and that jury instructions must only include the specific factors relevant to the evidence presented.
Through its recent decision in Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., the Federal Circuit gave Zimmer an early Christmas gift worth approximately $140 million by reversing a district court’s determination of willfulness and vacating a corresponding award of trebled damages against Zimmer. The reversal was based on the Federal Circuit’s finding that the noninfringement and invalidity defenses raised by Zimmer were “not objectively unreasonable.”
Navigating damages in patent cases is a complex exercise. In this series, beginning with the marking statute, we explore various nuances of damages analysis.
In its most recent decision in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, the Federal Circuit finally concluded that the claims-at-issue do not cover patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This comes after two prior decisions by the Federal Circuit reaching the opposite conclusion, and two orders from the U.S. Supreme Court instructing the Federal Circuit to reconsider those two decisions.
It’s been nearly half a year since the Supreme Court, in Octane Fitness, ostensibly lowered the standard for finding a patent case to be exceptional for purposes of fee-shifting. At the time, Octane generated much commentary and speculation, with some predicting a flood of fee awards and others predicting even more confusion at the district court level.