The IP File’s mission is to scour the universe for compelling stories in intellectual property law. In the United States, there are four main types of intellectual property protection available: patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets.
On March 9, 2016, in Charge Injection Technologies, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, C.A. No. 07C-12-134-JRL, the Superior Court of the State of Delaware issued a decision on a motion to dismiss for violating state champerty and maintenance laws. In 2008, plaintiff Charge Injection Technologies, Inc. (“CIT”) sued E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company (“Dupont”) for various patent and trade secrets related infractions. During the course of the litigation, CIT entered into a litigation financing arrangement with Burford Capital LLC (“Burford”). Dupont sought to have the case dismissed, arguing in part that CIT was not the true owner of the claims and Burford was wielding de facto control over the lawsuit. The Court denied Dupont’s motion, finding that CIT had not assigned its claim to Burford, and Burford had no right to maintain, direct, control or settle the litigation. In denying the motion, the Court affirmed the propriety of litigation financing, and strongly dispelled many of the criticisms raised by those opposed to such arrangements.
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee. One of the questions presented to the Court was the appropriate claim construction standard for inter partes review (IPR). The fundamental dispute, as framed by the Court, was the apparent intent of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) and the express rule-making authority it granted. Pursuant to the rule-making authority granted by the AIA, the Patent Office set forth the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as the standard for construing claims under an IPR. This is the standard used during original examination of an application for a patent. The patent-owner argued that, since IPRs were intended to be an alternative to litigating validity in the courts, it should be subject to the same standard of claim construction used there, which is generally understood to be narrower. Ultimately, the Court held that the rule-making authority trumped any arguments about intent and consequences and affirmed the Patent Office’s application of the BRI standard.
Through its recent decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., the Supreme Court discarded the mechanical two-part test governing enhanced damages fashioned by the Federal Circuit in Seagate, and gave district courts broad discretion to decide when to award enhanced damages in cases involving willful patent infringement. The Supreme Court also held that enhanced damages do not need to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, but only by a preponderance of the evidence. While this will make it easier for plaintiffs to obtain enhanced patent damages involving willful patent infringement, the high court made it clear that enhanced damages should still be reserved for cases involving egregious infringement behavior.
As most practitioners know, even a duly issued patent can be invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101 if the patent’s claims are directed to a “patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea. Yet, trying to anticipate whether a patent claim will actually be invalidated under § 101 remains as difficult as ever. The dispute between Global Cash Access, Inc. (“Global Cash”) and NRT Technology Corp. (“NRT”) involving U.S. Patent No. 6,081,792 (the “’792 Patent”) is illustrative.
On March 23, 2016, Glaser Weil Partner, Mieke Malmberg, along with co-presenter, Jason Angell of Freitas Angell & Weinberg, LLP, presented a one hour talk on changes in patent litigation to participants in a one day conference sponsored by the State Bar of California, in San Francisco. The program, entitled, "Patent Disputes for Our Time: New Realities, New Approaches", focused on patent litigation and management of patent disputes in today's changing landscape.
On February 11, 2016, Glaser Weil Partner, Mieke Malmberg, presented a one hour webinar sponsored by the State Bar of California on the use of the Federal Circuit’s Model order on electronic discovery in patent cases.
In last week’s 6-5 decision in SCA Hygiene Prod. v. First Quality Baby Prod., LLC, No. 2013-1564, 2015 WL 5474261 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2015), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reaffirmed that laches remains a viable defense in patent infringement lawsuits. The decision was reached despite the relatively recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1962 (2014), where the high court struck laches as an available copyright infringement defense. However, the Federal Circuit’s sharp divide on this issue suggests that further review by the U.S. Supreme Court may be on its way.
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.
By now, most patent practitioners are quite familiar with the post-grant patent proceedings (e.g., IPR, PGR, CBM) newly established by the AIA, and their key features, such as the stay and estoppel provisions. Numerous courts have addressed the issue of a stay of civil litigation during the pendency of a post-grant proceeding. The growing defense strategy, upon being sued for patent infringement, is to file a post-grant patent proceeding and seek a stay of the civil litigation, which allows the defendant to move the patent validity issue into a more favorable and usually less expensive forum. Most statistics show that courts in the various jurisdictions with active patent case dockets are quite willing to stay cases.