WLF’s Annual Mid-Term Supreme Court Briefing Addresses Key Free-Enterprise Cases

Participants:

The Hon. Jay B. Stephens, Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Chairman, WLF Legal Policy Advisory Board
Gregory G. Katsas, Jones Day
Melissa Arbus Sherry, Latham & Watkins LLP
Ashley C. Parrish, King & Spalding LLP

Imperfect Pleading v. Limits on Invalidation Authority: Federal Circuit Attempts to Clarify the Scope of Judicial Review

Wright_print_highres2Pelletier_Print HiResGuest Commentary

By Jon E. Wright & Pauline M. Pelletier, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox*

A hot topic in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is whether determinations made by the PTAB at the institution stage are reviewable on appeal by the Federal Circuit. In SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL 8770164 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the PTAB’s decision to consider issues not raised in the petition, but confirmed that it did have jurisdiction to review whether a patent was eligible for covered business method (CBM) review. The difference between these two issues, it noted, is that the petition could be “cured by a proper pleading” whereas CBM review eligibility constitutes a limit “on the Board’s authority to issue a final decision.” Continue reading

New Federal Procedural Rules May Deter Filing of Baseless Patent Lawsuits

Kaminski_Jeffri_LRFeatured Expert Contributor – Intellectual Property (Patents)

Jeffri A. Kaminski, Venable LLP

For years, defendants in patent infringement cases have protested the ease with which patent plaintiffs could file complaints. Since 1938, Form 18—a model form in an appendix of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)—set the pleading standard that courts in patent cases have applied. Form 18 requires that the complaint merely state that the plaintiff owns the patent(s), that the defendant infringes the patent(s), and that the plaintiff suffered damages. The form is barely over a page long and does not require any information on how the defendant infringes the patent or even what patent claims are allegedly infringed. Continue reading

European Court of Justice Ruling Adds to Challenges that U.S. Standard-Essential Patent Holders Face on Enforcement

BartkowskiGuest Commentary

by Paul M. Bartkowski, a partner with Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP, with Mike Doman, an associate with the firm.

On July 16, 2015, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”), in Huawei v. ZTE, clarified the circumstances under which an owner of a standard essential patent (SEP) that is required to license the SEP on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND) can bring a claim for injunctive relief against an alleged infringer. The ruling was highly anticipated because the nature of a SEP holder’s right to enjoin alleged infringers has been a recent topic of debate in both the U.S. and in Europe. A review of the decision reveals that European and American courts analyze FRAND-related issues quite differently. Continue reading

Federal Circuit Reaffirms International Trade Commission’s Authority Over Induced Patent Infringement

Kaminski_Jeffri_LRFeatured Expert Contributor – Intellectual Property (Patents)

Jeffri A. Kaminski, Venable LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc has reaffirmed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) longstanding authority for remedying inducement infringement. The ITC authority was called into question, and in fact overruled, by an earlier panel decision in the same case. The court sitting en banc in Suprema v. ITC voted 6-4 to overturn the panel’s decision limiting the circumstances under which the ITC could issue an exclusion order for induced infringement. The en banc decision closes a loophole for induced infringement and provides certainty on the issue.

By way of background, Suprema is company that manufactures fingerprint scanners in Korea. The fingerprint scanners are imported and sold to Mentalix in the U.S. Mentalix writes custom software for controlling the scanners. It then bundles its software with the scanners and resells the bundled product within the U.S. Continue reading

A Case with Teeth?: Federal Circuit to Review International Trade Commission’s Jurisdiction over Digital “Articles”

ITCNext Tuesday, August 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. International Trade Commission, a case that nominally involves a cease-and-desist order the International Trade Commission (ITC) imposed on a data file that contained a digital model of crooked teeth. As numerous amici in the case assert, however, the court’s ultimate decision could have significance well beyond digital teeth images; it could establish standards for the Commission’s jurisdiction over international trade in digitalized goods.

The case followed a routine path from ITC to the Federal Circuit. Align Technology complained to ITC that ClearCorrect was importing goods into the United States that infringed Align’s patents. Both companies create patient-specific “aligners” to correct crooked teeth. ClearCorrect’s facility in Texas would download data of a model created in Pakistan from a foreign-based server, and then use that data to create the aligner. Align alleged that the data “imported” from the foreign server constituted an “article,” under 19 U.S.C. § 1337, over which ITC had jurisdiction. Continue reading

Supreme Court Observations: Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC

Kaminski_Jeffri_LRFeatured Expert Contributor – Intellectual Property (Patents)

Jeffri A. Kaminski, Venable LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a closely watched case concerning contract rights and patent royalties. In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC the Court upheld its long standing precedent and determined that parties cannot agree to patent royalty payments that extend beyond the expiration of the patent.

The case originated when Kimble and Marvel agreed to a patent license for a toy glove that Kimble had patented. The licensing agreement called for a lump sum payment and running royalties for a license to the patent as part of a settlement of ongoing litigation. The agreement did not set an end date for the royalty payments. In making its decision the Court upheld its ruling in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964), holding that licenses requiring payment of patent royalties after patent expiration are “unlawful per se.” Brulotte has been the subject of criticism in the 50 years since it was decided, but the Court determined that was not enough of a reason to overturn its longstanding precedent. Continue reading