scott eads
Apr 25, 2018
Featured

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

CASE OF THE WEEK

Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank, Appeal No. 2016-2504 (Fed. Cir. 2018)‎

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the PTAB invalidating a patent concerning interactive computer links.  The case primarily concerned whether incorporation by reference was sufficient to meet the “specific reference” requirement to properly claim priority from an earlier provisional application.

Petitioner E*TRADE filed a petition for inter partes review of Droplets’ U.S. Patent No. 8,402,115 (“the ’115 Patent”).  The ’115 Patent claimed priority to U.S. Patent No. 7,502,838 (“the ’838 Patent”).  Droplets argued that the ’115 Patent was entitled to the benefit of an earlier provisional application—Provisional Application No. 60/153,917 (“the ’917 Provisional”)—because the ’115 Patent incorporated by reference the ’838 Patent, and the ’838 Patent claimed priority to the ’917 Provisional.  The Board disagreed, holding that incorporation by reference was insufficient to satisfy the “specific reference” requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 120.

Pursuant to § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.78, the Patent and Trademark Office requires the “specific reference” to include “each prior-filed application’s: (1) application number; and (2) familial relationship.”  Such reference must be included on an application data sheet or in the first sentence of the specification.

Read More

ALSO THIS WEEK

Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, Appeal No. 2015-1944 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

In a remand from a 2017 en banc decision, a Federal Circuit panel revisited the standard for time bars under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) governing inter partes reviews.  In the prior panel decision, the panel held that issues concerning § 315(b) were not appealable.  That statute bars the filing of an IPR petition by “the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner” more than one year after service of a complaint asserting infringement.  The en banc court reversed, holding that time bar determinations concerning privies and real parties in interest are appealable.  In this remand decision, the panel held that the PTAB did not err in finding that an indemnity agreement between the IPR petitioner and litigants in a district court lawsuit did not constitute privity, and also held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying related discovery.  Judge Reyna issued a lengthy dissenting opinion, asserting that the PTAB was applying an incorrect legal standard, and that discovery should have been allowed.

Opinion can be found here.

James v. j2 Cloud Services, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1506 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

In an appeal from a district court’s dismissal for lack of standing, the Federal Circuit reversed.  The plaintiff filed suit to assert a correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256, asserting that he was the sole inventor of the patents at issue, though others were named.  The district court held that the plaintiff lacked standing because he had not shown that he had an ownership right in the patent.  Specifically, it held that, even if he was the sole inventor, he had assigned, or obligated himself to assign, his patent rights to his former company.  The Federal Circuit concluded that the relevant Software Development Agreement (SDA) could be construed in Mr. James’s favor, leaving him with the rights to the patents at issue, and standing to seek a correction of inventorship.  The Federal Circuit also concluded that the SDA does not support a hired-to-invent inference.

Opinion can be found here.

Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, Appeal No. 2017-1930 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

In an appeal from a district court finding that claims were invalid as patent ineligible under § 101, the Federal Circuit affirmed.  The patent at issue had previously been litigated between the parties, and the district court had previously dismissed the defendant’s § 101 defense.  The Federal Circuit first held that the Supreme Court’s Alice decision was not an intervening change in the law.  Second, it held that the prior litigation did not result in issue preclusion, because the § 101 defense was neither “actually litigated” nor “a critical and necessary part of the judgment” in the prior action.  Third, visiting the merits, the Court held that the claims at issue, relating to voting, verifying votes, and submitting votes for tabulation, were patent ineligible as an abstract idea.

Opinion can be found here.

John Bean Technologies v. Morris & Associates Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

In an appeal from a district court summary judgment order dismissing a case, the Federal Circuit addressed an issue of first impression concerning the doctrine of equitable estoppel.  Specifically, the Court held that, when amendments are made during reexamination proceedings that are “both substantial and substantive,” prior acts giving rise to equitable estoppel may be negated, and the defense may no longer apply.  The Court held that, under the facts of this case, the district court erred in finding equitable estoppel.  However, the Court noted that its holding does not necessarily apply to all reexamined patents.

Opinion can be found here.

Raniere v. Microsoft Corporation, Appeal No. 2017-1400 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

In an appeal from a district court decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed an award of fees and costs to the defendants.  The Federal Circuit had previously affirmed the district court’s summary judgment decision that the plaintiff did not have standing.  In the instant appeal, the Court affirmed that costs could be awarded to defendants as a “prevailing party” where the case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.  The Court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Opinion can be found here.

Apator Miitors APS v. Kamstrup A/S, Appeal No. 2017-1681 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Court addressed whether the PTAB had erred in its finding that Apator failed to provide sufficient evidence of conception and reduction to practice necessary to swear behind a prior art reference.  The Court affirmed the PTAB’s decision, holding that Apator did not show sufficient evidence of conception.  In particular, an inventor’s own testimony in the absence of any evidence is insufficient to establish prior conception

Opinion can be found here.

Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals, Appeal No. 2017-1798 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

In an appeal from a district court Hatch-Waxman case, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the District Court correctly rejected the Appellant’s narrow claim construction that limited the claim at issue to “a racemic mixture of two enantiomers of which the structural formula is representative.”  The Court found that at a minimum the claim covered the (–) enantiomer.  Since this finding resolved the claim dispute between the parties, the Court did not examine the remainder of the District Court’s construction and affirmed its judgment.

Opinion can be found here.

Written by: Scott D. Eads and Nika F. Aldrich, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt

Contributors: Angela Addae, Cristin Wagner, Michael A. Cofield and Karri Kuenzli Bradley, Ph.D.