Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases
CASE OF THE WEEK
VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Appeal No. 2022-1906 (Fed. Cir. December 4, 2023)
In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated an approximately $2.2 billion damages award against appellant Intel Corporation for infringement of two microprocessor patents owned by appellee VLSI Corp. The Court reversed the jury’s verdict of infringement as to one patent and affirmed as to the other, but vacated the entire damages award due to a significant technical error in VLSI’s experts’ calculation of damages. The Federal Circuit also held that the district court erred in denying Intel’s pretrial motion to add a license defense.
The patents at issue were VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,523,373, directed to certain low-voltage operating techniques; and U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759, directed to techniques for microprocessor clock speed management. The jury had found that certain Intel processors literally infringed the ’373 patent and infringed the ’759 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding on the ’373 patent as supported by substantial evidence, but reversed the finding as to the ’759 patent. The Court emphasized that application of the doctrine of equivalents must be carefully limited to avoid infringing on the primacy of the claim language as defining the scope of the invention. As such, in order to support DOE infringement, a patentee must provide “particularized testimony and linking argument,” on a limitation-by-limitation basis, to establish the insubstantiality of any differences between the claimed and accused device.
ALSO THIS WEEK
H. Lundbeck A/S v. Lupin Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2022-1194, -1208, -1246 (Fed. Cir. December 7, 2023)
In this appeal and cross-appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the Federal Circuit addressed the district court’s determination as to whether the defendants’ Abbreviated New Drug Application will infringe certain patents owned by the plaintiffs related to the drug Trintellix—a treatment for depression in adults that contains the active ingredient vortioxetine. The district court had found that the defendants’ ANDA did not infringe the plaintiffs’ patents related to a method of use for treating depression, but would infringe one of the patents related to the manufacture of vortioxetine. Lundbeck et al. appealed the non-infringement determination and defendants Lupin et al. cross-appealed the infringement determination. On the plaintiffs’ appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, with the reasoning that the district court correctly found that Lundbeck and related Takeda Pharmaceuticals entities were not seeking approval for an indication claimed by the plaintiffs’ patents, so there was no infringement with regard to a method of use for treating depression. On the defendants’ cross appeal, the Federal Circuit also affirmed, and ruled that the district court did not err in its claim construction and ultimate determination of infringement as to the manufacture of vortioxetine.
The opinion can be found here.
Editors:
Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder
Contributors: