Federal Circuit Review - August 2017

by Knobbe Martens
Contact

Knobbe Martens

District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness

In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion in denying attorneys’ fees when the court failed to follow the Federal Circuit’s mandate to reconsider the case under a new legal standard, and when the facts independently merited an award of attorneys’ fees.

AdjustaCam sued Newegg and other defendants for infringing a patent directed to a rotating clip for a webcam.   Shortly after an adverse claim construction order, AdjustaCam settled with most defendants but continued to litigate against Newegg.  AdjustaCam eventually moved to dismiss the case with prejudice, and Newegg moved for a declaration of exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award of fees, pointing to AdjustaCam’s past nuisance-value settlements, weak infringement positions post-Markman, and abusive litigation tactics.

The district court denied Newegg’s motion and Newegg appealed.  The Supreme Court then issued its decision in Octane Fitness, and the Federal Circuit remanded for reconsideration in light of Octane.  On remand, a new judge adopted the previous judge’s factual determinations without much explanation and again concluded that the case was not exceptional.  Newegg again appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the district court abused its discretion for two reasons.  First, the district court failed to examine the case under the totality of the circumstances and lower burden of proof required by Octane Fitness.  By adopting the previous judge’s findings of fact without substantive analysis, the court did not follow the Federal Circuit’s mandate.  Second, the district court clearly erred in its findings about the substantive strength of AdjustaCam’s case.  The Federal Circuit found that AdjustaCam’s suit became “baseless” after the claim construction decision and that AdjustaCam litigated in an “unreasonable manner,” especially by repeatedly serving belated expert declarations and reports.  The court further found that AdjustaCam’s pattern of seeking nuisance-value damages reinforced a conclusion of unreasonableness. 


Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB for Improper Means-Plus-Function Analysis

In IPcom GmbG & Co. v. HTC Corporation, Appeal No. 2016-1474, the Federal Circuit held that the PTO may not interpret mean-plus-function limitations as purely functional based on the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard.  Instead, the PTO must look to the specification for the corresponding structure that performs the function.    

IPCom sued HTC for allegedly infringing a patent directed to methods and systems for handing over a phone call from one base station to another.  HTC requested inter partes reexamination.  In construing the means-plus-function limitation “arrangement for reactivating the link,” the Board rejected IPCom’s proposed 3-step algorithm for performing the function.  However, the Board did not identify what it believed to be the correct algorithm from the specification.  Instead, the Board determined that each individual step of IPCom’s proposed algorithm was not separately necessary.  Thus, the Board held that several claims were obvious after concluding that it need not consider whether the prior art disclosed any of the three steps.

IPCom argued that the Board erred by never identifying the structure in the patent specification that corresponds to the “arrangement for reactivating the link” term.  The Federal Circuit held that the Board impermissibly treated that limitation as a purely functional limitation.  The Board’s conclusion was inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s prior decision in In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994), which held that the PTO may not disregard structure disclosed in the specification that corresponds to a means-plus-function limitation.  Thus, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s finding of obviousness based on the term “arrangement for reactivating the link.”


Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Patent Claims for Soft Gel Capsule Version of Coenzyme Q-10

In Soft Gel Technologies, Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1815, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of patent claims directed to soft gel CoQ10 capsules, holding that the legal standard for obviousness requires a reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability.

Jarrow Formulas requested inter partes reexaminations of three related patents directed to using d-limonene (a monoterpene) as a solvent for CoQ10.  The PTAB invalidated numerous claims from each of the three patents for obviousness.  On appeal, Soft Gel challenged the Board’s factual finding that a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining prior art references.  Soft Gel argued that, because the references cited by the Board did not expressly mention d-limonene, a person of skill in the art would not have expected d-limonene to function like carvone, the monoterpene that was actually disclosed by the prior art. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that another prior art reference discussed future studies on interactions between CoQ10 and essential oils, such as limonene. As the Board correctly noted, “[t]hose recommendations for future research show that a person of skill in the art would have recognized [] that the monoterpenes limonene and carvone are of interest in the essential oil–CoQ10 mixtures. “

Soft Gel also highlighted follow-up research by a prior-art author that evaluated the use of d-limonene in drug delivery systems.  Soft Gel argued that the reason for conducting follow-up research was because it was not obvious that the results in the prior art experiments were attributable to d-limonene.  The Federal Circuit rejected this argument because “Soft Gel applies an incorrect legal standard for obviousness, requiring ‘absolute predictability’ rather than a reasonable expectation of success.”  The Federal Circuit reasoned that a “supplemental study does not imply lack of awareness of the likely result; rather, studies are frequently conducted to confirm what is suspected to be true.”


District Court May Sanction Discovery Abuses with Adverse Inference of Specific Intent to Deceive the USPTO

In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Merus N.V., Appeal No. 2016-1346, the Federal Circuit held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in drawing an adverse inference of specific intent to deceive the patent office due to the plaintiff’s widespread litigation misconduct.

Regeneron sued Merus for patent infringement.  Merus counterclaimed for a finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct based on four prior art references that were withheld from the examiner during prosecution of the asserted patent.  The district bifurcated the inequitable conduct trial into two bench trials to determine the materiality of the prior art references and Regeneron’s specific intent to deceive the PTO.  At the first bench trial, the district court held that each of the four withheld prior art references were were not cumulative and, in fact, were but-for material to prosecution. However, instead of holding a second bench trial on specific intent, the district court sanctioned Regeneron for widespread litigation misconduct by drawing an adverse inference of specific intent by Regeneron to deceive the PTO.

The Federal Circuit affirmed.  The court noted that Regeneron’s behavior during litigation, in which Regeneron repeatedly failed to make full and adequate production of documents during discovery by withholding non-privileged documents relating to the alleged attempt to deceive the PTO, suggested a pattern of misconduct.  This pattern of misconduct during litigation was sufficient to support an adverse inference that Regeneron had specific intent to deceive the PTO by withholding material references during prosecution.  The Federal Circuit reasoned that Regeneron’s litigation misconduct had obfuscated its prosecution misconduct, and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by drawing an adverse inference of specific intent to deceive the PTO.

In dissent, Judge Newman argued that specific intent to deceive cannot be inferred, and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.  She also argued that, while litigation misconduct can support dismissal of a suit, unenforceability must be established based on the law of enforceability and should not be imposed as a discovery sanction.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Knobbe Martens | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Knobbe Martens
Contact
more
less

Knobbe Martens on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.