patent infringement – IP Law Watch

The Kremlin’s Intellectual Property Cold War: Legalizing Patent Theft with Decree 299

Mar 28 2022

Russia’s bold response to Western economic sanctions following its invasion of Ukraine now includes what amounts to legalizing patent theft against “unfriendly countries.” On March 5, 2022, the Kremlin issued Decree 299, which states that Russian companies and individuals can use inventions, utility models and industrial designs without owner permission or compensation, if the patent hails from a list of “unfriendly countries.”¹ Specifically, the decree sets compensation for patent infringement at “0%” if the patent holder is a citizen of, is registered in, or has a primary place of business or profit in any of the 48 countries Russia previously designated as “unfriendly.”² Unsurprisingly, the list includes the United States, Great Britain, European Union members, Australia, and other critics of Russia’s actions against Ukraine.

F45 Cops a Punch in Further Australian Decision on Patents for Computer Implemented Inventions

Feb 18 2022

The scorecard against computer implemented inventions being patentable in Australia took another hit this week when the Federal Court revoked two innovation patents from global fitness giant, F45 in F45 Training Pty Ltd v Body Fit Training Company Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 96. Justice Nicholas of the Federal Court held that F45’s innovation patents, which involved a computer implemented system for configuring and operating one or more fitness studios, were invalid and even if they were valid, rival fitness franchise Body Fit Training did not infringe them.

Federal Circuit Further Clarifies Venue in Hatch-Waxman Cases

Nov 14 2021

Last year, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit confirmed that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole venue provision for domestic defendants in Hatch-Waxman actions.¹ On Friday 5 November 2021, the Federal Circuit provided even greater clarity on venue rules in such cases, concluding that, for venue purposes, only submission of the ANDA qualifies as an act of infringement, not any action related to the submission.²

Australia aligns with the U.S. and EU by adopting ‘exhaustion of rights’ doctrine

Nov 18 2020

The High Court of Australia’s recent decision Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation [2020] HCA 41 (Calidad) has more closely aligned Australian patent law with its U.S. and European counterparts. Key takeaways from this decision are:

the ‘doctrine of exhaustion of rights’ has replaced the ‘implied licence doctrine’;
a patent owner’s exclusive rights are extinguished by the first sale of the patented goods;
innovators have greater scope to reuse products without risking patent infringement; and
patentees seeking greater control over post-sale use should do so through contract law.

K&L Gates releases 2017/18 Patents Year in Review – Second Edition

Nov 07 2018

2017/18 was an intriguing 12 months in the Australian patent landscape, with Courts being called upon to deliver decisions in relation to a number of issues that have not previously been judicially considered. The judgments delivered in this period have dealt with the patentability of methods claims deploying genetic information, patent term extensions for “Swiss-style” claims and whether applying to list a product on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme constitutes an act of patent infringement.

Recycling or Remaking – Exhaustion of Patent Rights

Dec 04 2017

In the case Seiko Epson Corporation v Calidad Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1403 (29 November 2017), Seiko sold various Epson inkjet printer cartridges for use with its printers. Ninestar collected used cartridges in Malaysia, made modifications to facilitate their reuse, and refilled them with ink. Calidad purchased the cartridges in Malaysia from Ninestar, then imported and sold them in Australia.

Seiko sued Calidad for infringement of two patents for printer cartridges. Calidad defended the claim on the basis that an implied licence ran with the cartridges, alternatively Seiko’s patent rights had been exhausted when Seiko first put the cartridges on the market.

Ninestar modified some cartridges more than others in order to make them suitable for re-use. Justice Burley found that the defence was available in some cases but not others. It was a question of degree, but the Judge considered that in some cases Ninestar so materially altered the cartridges that “the licence implied by a sale without restriction of the original Epson cartridge does not apply”.

Markush Madness: Watson Avoids Infringement by Adding an Element to a Formulation

Apr 05 2017

On February 1, 2017, in Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Watson’s proposed generic version of Shire’s LIALDA® did not infringe claims 1 and 3 of Shire’s U.S. Patent No. 6,773,720 (the “’720 patent”).[1] In reversing the district court, the Federal Circuit determined that Shire’s claim to an outer layer “consisting of” a list of specific elements closes the universe of elements for infringement purposes, and Watson’s addition of an ingredient (“magnesium stearate”) to the outer layer of its accused product created non-infringement because it was outside the claimed list of elements.[2] The Federal Circuit’s opinion rests on a strict reading of the Markush groups within the ’720 patent and a rejection of the district court’s broad reading of the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.[3]

Background
A Markush-type claim (also known as a Markush group) allows a patent drafter to capture independent, related claim elements in a single limitation. The claim is characterized by the form “selected from the group consisting of A, B and C.”[4] The “consisting of” language closes the group from including other members, such as “D.” “Consisting of” limits an element to only the named members of the group, and an element selected from outside that group will not be covered by the claim. In contrast, patent drafters frequently use an alternative preamble “comprising” to keep the claims open to additional, unrecited elements.[5]

Here, Shire sued Watson for infringing claims 1 and 3 of the ’720 patent by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the Food and Drug Administration seeking to market a generic version of Shire’s drug LIALDA®. The ’720 patent is directed to a controlled-release oral composition of mesalamine (5-amino-salicylic acid) used to treat Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. The claimed composition includes the mesalamine active ingredient; an inner, lipophilic matrix that “resists dissolving in water”; an outer, hydrophilic matrix that “readily dissolves in” water; and other optional excipients.

To read the full alert, click here.

By: Kenneth C. Liao and Peter Giunta

Tag:patent infringement