Source: https://www.iplawalert.com/category/patent/page/2/
Timestamp: 2018-12-18 17:28:12
Document Index: 547102629

Matched Legal Cases: ['§271', '§284', '§271', '§284', '§ 355', '§ 1400', '§1400']

Patent Archives | Page 2 of 31 | IP Law Alert
by Tryn T. Stimart
The Supreme Court in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. opened a new door to recover for patent damages in its holding that a patent owner can recover damages for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(2) and §284 of lost foreign profits. The Patent Act outlines several ways an alleged infringer may be liable for patent infringement, including §271(f) which “expands the definition of infringement to include supplying from the United States a patented invention’s components.” 35 U.S.C. §284 authorizes “damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.” In this case, WesternGeco developed technology for surveying the ocean floor for oil and gas companies. ION Geophysical Corp. sold a competing system where the components were manufactured in the United States and shipped abroad. The Southern District of Texas found that ION Geophysical Corporation infringed WesternGeco’s patents, and that WesternGeco lost specific contracts due to ION’s infringement. The district court awarded $93.4 million in lost profits and $12.5 million in royalties. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the award of lost-profit damages following its precedent in Power Integrations, Inc....
On June 13, Senator Orrin Hatch, co-author of the Hatch-Waxman Act, proposed an amendment in the Senate Judiciary Committee to modify the inter partes review (“IPR”) process for pharmaceuticals. The senator published a press release summarizing and explaining the proposed legislation. The amendment, titled the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018, intends to “restore the careful balance the Hatch-Waxman Act struck to incentivize generic drug development” by “prevent[ing] alternative procedures for challenging drug patents from tilting the playing field contrary to Hatch-Waxman’s design.” The proposed legislation would amend Sections 505(b)(2) and 505(j)(2)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 355(b)(2) and 355(j)(2)(A) respectively) to require the applicant to certify to the FDA that “neither the applicant nor any party in privity with the applicant, has filed, or will file, a petition to institute inter partes review” in order to be eligible for abbreviated regulatory approval under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The applicant would further need to certify that it “is not relying in whole or in part on any decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an [IPR]” in making the certification that the relevant listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed. According to Senator...
The Federal Circuit in In Re BigCommerce recently held in a mandamus opinion that a domestic corporation incorporated in a state having multiple judicial districts “resides” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) only in a single judicial district within that state. In so holding, the Federal Circuit resolved a district court split with competing interpretations from the Eastern District of Texas and the Central District of California. The court’s opinion provides further guidance to practitioners and clarifies jurisprudence post TC Heartland. The patent venue statute provides that patent infringement suits may be brought (1) “in the judicial district where the defendant resides,” or (2) “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) (emphasis added). The Central District of California in Realtime Data LLC v Nexenta System held that a domestic corporation “resides” in the state of its incorporation “only in the judicial district in which it maintains in principal place of business.” No 2:17-cv-07690, Dkt. 28 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018). The Eastern District of Texas in Diem v. BigCommerce came to a different conclusion, holding that “a domestic corporation resides in the state of its incorporation and if that...
USPTO Proposes a New Rule to Use Narrower Phillips Standard During Claim Construction in AIA Trial Proceedings
On May 9, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed to amend the current rules to change the claim construction standard used in America Invents Act (AIA) reviews and bring it in line with the standard used in district court and ITC proceedings. Under the amended rules, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) would no longer use the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for claim construction, and instead would use the narrower Phillips standard. The proposed rules would apply to claim interpretations occurring in inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method (CBM) patents proceedings. The Board currently construes unexpired patent claims and proposed claims in AIA trial proceedings using the BRI standard, as directed by 37 CFR 42.100(b), 42.200(b), and 42.300(b). Each of these sections currently provides that “[a] claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” This standard differs from the Phillips standard used by district courts. Under the proposed changes to these sections, the PTAB will adopt the Phillips standard and construe claims “given their...
USPTO Issues Guidance Applying SAS Institute to Pending and Future PTAB Trials
On April 26, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a guidance, applying SAS Institute v. Iancu to the America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court in SAS Institute held that when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of all claims challenged in the original petition. The USPTO guidance gives a general outline of how the PTAB will review patents in the future, and how it will handle cases that are already pending. The memo makes clear that the PTAB will no longer have partial institutions: “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” For pending trials in which the PTAB has instituted trial on only some of the petitioned claims, “the panel may issue an order supplementing the institution decision to institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” The final written decision will address, to the extent claims are still pending at the time of decision, “all patent claims challenged by the petitioner and all new claims added through the amendment process.” When supplementing the institution decision, the panel has discretion to manage the...