Patents – Page 11 – IP Law Watch

Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of PTAB Proceedings

Jun 14 2017

On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Oil States Energy Services, LLC’s petition for a writ of certiorari to address the following question: “Whether inter partes review—an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents—violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.” The Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari on Oil States’ remaining two questions presented, relating to amendment procedures and claim construction.

Oil States’ argument is that patents are private property rights that can only be revoked by an Article III court, not by an Article I agency. In particular, Oil States urges the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s decision in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., which held that patents are public rights and that “Congress has the power to delegate disputes over public rights to non-Article III courts.”[1] The Federal Circuit has already upheld the constitutionality of the PTO’s ex parte reexamination process in Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff.[2] In doing so, consistent with MCM, the Federal Circuit affirmed the power of an Article I agency to adjudicate the validity of an issued patent in the first instance.[3]

The Supreme Court previously rejected three other petitions challenging the constitutionality of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) proceedings. And, as recently as last month, the same issue was presented for en banc review to the Federal Circuit, which declined to review in a 10–2 vote.[4] Accordingly, this case will present the first opportunity for the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the immensely popular post-grant proceedings put in place by the America Invents Act. The case also presents interesting issues regarding a patentee’s right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

Updates to this alert will be provided as they become available.

[1] 812 F.3d 1284, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

[2] 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

[3] Id. at 604.

[4] Cascades Projection LLC v. Epson Am., Inc., No. 2017-1517, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2017).

By: Jason Engel, Devon Beane and Erik Halverson

Coming Home?: Federal Circuit Asked To Immediately Weigh In On Proper Venue Post-TC Heartland

Jun 12 2017

In a case pending in the Eastern District of Virginia, set to start trial on June 12, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Tennessee following the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341, 2017 WL 2216934 (U.S. May 22, 2017). The district court ordered expedited briefing on the issue and ultimately determined that the defendants had waived their right to challenge venue. In particular, according to the district court, “TC Heartland does not qualify for the intervening law exception to waiver because it merely affirms the viability of Fourco [Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 226 (1957)].” Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., No. 15-cv-21, Opinion & Order at 6 (E.D. Va. June 7, 2017).

Because trial is just around the corner for these defendants, they filed an emergency motion to stay the district court case with the Federal Circuit to allow time to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (“Mandamus Petition”). On June 8, 2017, the Federal Circuit denied the motion without prejudice to refiling if defendants filed the Mandamus Petition. Interestingly, however, Judge Newman dissented from the denial, stating unequivocally that TC Heartland “was a change in the law of venue.” In re: Sea Ray Boats, Inc., No. 17-124, Dkt. No. 4 at 3 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2017) (Newman, J., dissenting). Judge Newman explained that “[t]he processes of law are designed not for the convenience of judges, but as safeguards to litigants and warders of justice.” Id. at 4. Because the change in law “bring[s] the propriety of the current venue directly into question,” Judge Newman believed a stay of the underlying trial was appropriate. Id.

On the morning of June 9, 2017, the defendants filed their Mandamus Petition and renewed their emergency motion to stay the trial.

Updates to this alert will be provided as they become available.

By: Jason Engel and Devon Curtis Beane

Britax overruled – Federal Court sets record straight for infringement of innovation patents

May 04 2017

The Full Court of the Federal Court’s decision in Coretell Pty Ltd v Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 54 has clarified the date from which the owner of an innovation patent is entitled to compensation for infringement of the innovation patent. In the case of an innovation patent which has been filed as a divisional application, the Court’s decision significantly alters the time from which relief can be claimed, and has the potential to dramatically reduce the amount of compensation to which the patentee is entitled.

A previous decision of the Federal Court of Australia (Britax Childcare Pty Ltd v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1019) held that the owner of a divisional innovation patent was entitled to relief from the date that the “parent” application became open for public inspection (OPI). This allowed a patentee to strategically file a divisional innovation patent with claims tailored to read on to a competitor’s conduct, and then claim relief from the parent’s OPI date (which may have been some years earlier). As Justice Burley noted in Coretell, this produced the unattractive result of a person being liable to pay compensation for acts of infringement pre-dating the existence of the innovation patent said to have been infringed.

Justice Burley (with whom Justice Nicholas and Jagot agreed) corrected this anomaly and made clear that the relevant date for relief for infringement of an innovation patent is its date of grant. This diminishes the strategic benefit of patentees filing divisional innovation patents – although divisional innovation patents can still be tailored to target the conduct of a potential infringer, the patentee will only be entitled to relief from the date the divisional innovation patent was granted, and therefore publicly accessible, and not before.

By: Alex Dunlop and Nakita Wilkinson

Sandoz v. Amgen—Biosimilars at the Supreme Court—Oral Argument

May 02 2017

All nine U.S. Supreme Court justices heard argument on Wednesday April 26th, in Sandoz Inc., v. Amgen Inc. The Supreme Court is reviewing interpretations of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Wednesday’s arguments focused on four main issues:

whether the FDA could preliminarily grant licensure prior to the expiration of the 12 year statutory period;
whether the notice of commercial marketing requires official licensure to be made;
whether the “patent dance” was required by the BPCIA; and
whether state law could be used to enforce compliance with the “patent dance” elements of the BPCIA.

Industry watchers hope that the Supreme Court will streamline the process for getting biosimilars to market by providing increased certainty.

To read the full alert, click here.

By: Theodore J. Angelis, Peter Giunta, Kenneth C. Liao, Margaux L. Nair and Jenna Bruce

Australian Patent and Plant Breeder’s Rights Year in Review

Apr 12 2017

K&L Gates has prepared the first edition of Patent and Plant Breeder’s Rights Year in Review which examines the significant judgments, development and events effecting patents and plant breeder’s rights in Australia.

The Review looks at a number of cases over the year including the Australian High Court’s decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc in the biotech industry, whether an Australian affiliate of an international pharma company was an exclusive licensee and whether it had standing to sue, and the Productivity Commission’s “IP Arrangements” Inquiry Report plus other updates. Click here for the summary or click here for the ePublication.

By: Simone Mitchell, Veg Tran, Michael Christie, Alex Dunlop, Jillian Lim, Jamie Wolbers and Jessica Mandla

Italy ratifies UPC Agreement and Introduces Provisions Against Indirect Counterfeiting

Jan 19 2017

In December 2016 the Italian government ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). By this ratification, Italian patent law now has a new rule on the prevention of indirect use of an invention (“indirect counterfeiting”), which is unprecedented in Italy.

The text of the new law amends the Italian Industrial Property Code by reference to Article 26 of the UPCA, by stating:

“A patent confers on its proprietor the right to prevent any third party not having the proprietor’s consent, from supplying or offering to supply, within the territory of the state in which that patent has effect, any person other than a party entitled to exploit the patented invention, with means, relating to an essential element of that invention, for putting it into effect therein, when the third party knows, or should have known by ordinary diligence, that those means are suitable and intended for putting that invention into effect.

The above paragraph does not apply when the means are common commercial products, except where the third party induces the person supplied to perform any of the acts prohibited under the qualification of direct use of the invention.”

This law – which was added to the pre-existing Article 66 of the Italian Industrial Property Code – makes reference to a list of persons and acts excluded from being able to exploit an invention. Such a list is contained in Article 68 of the Italian Industrial Property Code, which currently remains unmodified.

The implementation of this rule on “indirect counterfeiting” represents a step forward in legal protection for patents in Italy.

By: Alessandra Feller and Alessia Castelli

Supreme Court Signals Shift in Approach to Damages in Design Patent Infringement Cases

Dec 12 2016

In its first design patent case in over a century, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, reversed a damages award Apple Inc. (“Apple”) had won over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) in their protracted patent battle. The design patents at issue were directed to certain elements of Apple’s iPhone. The Court focused its attention on the meaning of the term “article of manufacture,” suggesting that the Federal Circuit’s definition, which encompassed the entire phone, might be too broad. Instead, the Court determined that “article of manufacture” could be limited to a particular component of a product, regardless of whether that component is severable (or sold separately) from the product as a whole. Declining to decide how much money Apple was entitled to under this new interpretation, the Court remanded the case to the Federal Circuit for further proceedings.

Please click here to view the full alert.

By: Jason A. Engel, Gina A. Jenero, Jacob C. Vannette

The Australian Patent Office Once Again Allows Claims Directed to Nucleic Acids

Nov 28 2016

In Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v BASF Plant Sciences GmbH [2016] APO 83, the Australian Patent Office has once again confirmed that nucleic acids are patentable in Australia.[1]

The opposed application relates to methods of producing polyunsaturated fatty acids in the seeds of transgenic plants. The application included claims directed to a recombinant nucleic acid molecule comprising nucleic acid sequences coding for a polypeptide with Δ6-desaturase activity, a polypeptide with Δ5-desaturase activity, a polypeptide with Δ6-elongase activity and a polypeptide with Δ5-elongase activity, as well as one or more copies of a promoter and a terminator.

Proposed Australian-New Zealand Single-Desk Patent System Abandoned

Nov 15 2016

The proposed single application (SAP) and examination (SEP) processes for Australia and New Zealand have recently been abandoned, more than five years after they were first introduced. The SAP and SEP would have allowed applicants wishing to obtain patents in both countries to file a common application that would be examined by a single examiner at either IP Australia or IPONZ. Once accepted under each country’s law, two separate patents would be granted. Patent examiners would have had to learn to apply the laws of the other country.

Nucleic Acids Remain Patentable in Australia

Oct 27 2016

A recent Patent Office decision in Arrowhead Research Corporation [2016] APO 70¹ (“Arrowhead”) has confirmed that nucleic acids can still be patented in Australia.

Following the High Court of Australia’s ruling in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35² (“Myriad”), the Australian Patent Office has been broadly objecting to claims that encompass isolated nucleic acids. This practice has frustrated applicants and their attorneys who consider many of the objections to be reactionary, and not consistent with the facts and principles set out in Myriad. In a very recent decision, the Patent Office has confirmed that nucleic acids remain patentable subject matter in Australia by allowing claims directed to interfering RNA compositions.

In Myriad, the High Court clearly stated that it would not be concerning itself with “gene patents” generally, but with the disputed claims specifically (at [37]). Those claims defined isolated nucleic acids per se that were useful in the detection of breast cancer. While acknowledging that the claims defined a product created by human action, the High Court considered that the “substance” of the claims was information, which could not be the subject of a valid claim.

Category:Patents