Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases
CASE OF THE WEEK
Harris Brumfield v. IBG LLC, Appeal No. 2022-1630 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024)
In our case of the week, the Federal Circuit addressed three issues in a dispute that dates back to 2010, and has been to the Court on three other occasions. The case was originally filed by Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”), which sued IBG in relation to four related patents directed to graphical user interfaces used by commodity traders. The case proceeded to trial, at which TT won an award of approximately $7 million. Along the way, however, two of its patents were found invalid under Section 101, one of its damages opinions was held inadmissible at trial, and the district court denied a new trial motion. TT’s successor appealed those three decisions. (IBG did not appeal the verdict against it.)
The most significant of the Court’s opinions concerned the expert’s effort to attach damages in the form of a reasonable royalty to overseas customers’ use of accused software. That opinion, encompassing more than 20 pages of the Court’s 47-page opinion, cited extensively to the Supreme Court’s decision in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U.S. 407 (2018), which we wrote about here. We discuss that analysis first.
ALSO THIS WEEK
Virtek Vision International ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1998, -2022 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024)
In a brief precedential decision, the Federal Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part a PTAB decision that had invalidated some claims, and upheld others, with regard to Virtek’s US Patent No. 10,052,734. Virtek appealed the decision of the unpatentable claims, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for the obviousness conclusion. Petitioner Aligned Vision cross-appealed on the claims found not unpatentable. The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s obviousness findings but affirmed on the cross-appeal, such that all claims ultimately survived the challenge.
Inline Plastics Corp. v. Lacerta Group, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1954, -2295 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024)
In this appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the Federal Circuit addressed a number of trial-related issues raised in Inline Plastics Corp’s (“Inline”) appeal, including (1) whether the district court had erred in denying Inline’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no invalidity; and (2) whether the district court had given incorrect jury instructions as to the objective indicia of nonobviousness. The Federal Circuit rejected Inline’s argument that the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law as to no invalidity, but found the district court’s jury instructions to be in error and not harmless.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Appeal No. 2022-1877 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2024)
In this case, the Federal Circuit re-affirmed its broad interpretation of the regulatory “safe harbor” provided in 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1), over a vigorous dissenting opinion by Judge Lourie. The case concerned appellee Meril’s importation of two prototypes of an allegedly infringing heart valve system for demonstration at a research symposium, although the devices ended up staying locked in baggage or storage for the duration of their stay in the United States. A majority of the Federal Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Meril that the importation fell within the safe harbor.
Editors:
Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder
Contributors:
Mario E. Delegato, Associate
Ann Bernert, Patent Law Clerk