Teva v. Sandoz -- Is Deferential Review a Boon for Patent Trolls?

by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
Contact

Supreme Court Building #3On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case to determine whether appellate courts should afford any deference to a trial court's claim construction determination.  We have been previewing this case, including the case law backdrop (see "Supreme Court Preview -- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. -- The End of Cybor Corp.?") and the positions of the parties as presented in their briefing to the Court (see "Teva v. Sandoz -- Supreme Court Preview").  And, for a more detailed explanation of the science underlying the case, we provided a summary of the Federal Circuit decision at the time (see "Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)").  Of course, unlike the Lighting Ballast en banc case, very little was said at the Federal Circuit regarding the standard of claim construction review in the appellate court's decision.  In fact, even though the Court explicitly noted that it was using the de novo standard, it was framed as a determination of indefiniteness.  Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 723 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("On de novo review of the district court's indefiniteness holding, we conclude that Dr. Grant's testimony does not save Group I claims from indefiniteness.").

The outcome of this case will certainly impact patent litigants going forward.  However, what policy concerns does this case represent to operating companies in the abstract?  Interestingly, of the three amicus briefs submitted by operating companies themselves (representing 20 companies in total), all supported maintaining the de novo standard of review.  One of these briefs, filed by Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, argued that adoption of deferential review would disproportionately impact medical technology patents, considering that 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues arise more often in such patents.  This problem, according to Fresenius, is caused by the interplay between the canon of construction to preserve validity and the invalidity issues related to § 112, and will necessitate related factual findings for these medical technology patents.

The remaining 19 amici were self-described as "high-technology" or "technology" companies.  Both sets pointed out why the Supreme Court's Markman decision actually favored de novo review.  They both also outlined several public policy concerns raised by the possibility of a more deferential standard.  And, one of these policy concerns raised by both briefs was that a change to a more deferential standard would serve to benefit the companies that have been labeled as "patent trolls" -- non-practicing entities ("NPEs") and patent assertion entities ("PAEs").

Intel, EMC, Facebook, Red Hat, and Verizon

Intel, et al. ("Intel") alleged that NPEs will be more likely to forum shop if a more deferential standard of claim construction is adopted.  In general, Intel believed that forum shopping will likely increase because parties will be secure in the knowledge that the selected jurisdiction's decisions will likely be upheld upon review.  These five companies pointed out that they have all had personal experience with the significant costs of NPE litigation tactics.  They cited a piece authored by Judge Moore before becoming a Federal Circuit judge, which pointed out that forum shopping erodes public confidence, wastes resources, and decreases innovation.  The Federal Circuit was created to remedy the problem of forum shopping, and Intel suggested this will be eroded with a deferential standard of claim construction review.

With regard to other public policy considerations, Intel argued that de novo review was preferable to a more deferential standard because it ensures consistent, accurate constructions of claim language.  The alternative will instead result in the possibility of contradictory interpretations of the same patent claims in different cases.  In fact, the Supreme Court in Markman noted that because the Federal Circuit was the only court hearing patent appeals, it would ensure the uniformity and certainty of claim constructions.  This is because any final decisions would apply to future cases as a matter of stare decisis.  And, as Intel pointed out, application of stare decisis cannot occur if the appellate court is required to follow deferential review.

Intel also pointed out that the threat of inconsistent rulings is not imaginary.  In the case of the American Piledriving, seven different courts construed three terms from the same patent, and no two courts construed all three terms the same.  This possibility is likely to increase because of the provisions of the America Invents Act requiring plaintiffs to pursue separate litigations against individual defendants.  In response to the argument that res judicata eliminates any concern about deferential review, Intel pointed out that issue preclusion would not apply to new and independent litigants.  In fact, an alleged infringer would only need to offer evidence supporting a different construction to be allowed a chance to litigate a different construction.

More importantly, according to Intel, deferential review of claim constructions would likely increase the cost of patent litigation.  A deferential standard would prevent expeditious resolution in district court.  Unlike the current practice in many jurisdictions of holding early claim construction hearings, courts are likely to require intensive discovery before entertaining such motions.  It will, therefore, be harder to obtain early summary judgment, dismissal, or other resolution.  Moreover, delaying claim construction until the end of a case, which is likely to happen with deferential review, will force the parties to litigate for years without the benefit of knowing how the claims will be interpreted.  This will also have the effect of reducing incentives to settle early.

Google, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Salesforce.com, Twitter, Yahoo!, Acushnet, Ebay, Kaspersky Lab, Limelight Networks, Newegg, QVC, SAS, and Xilinx

Google et al. ("Google") focused on the serious problems caused by vague patent claims, unpredictable constructions, and costly litigation.  In fact, according to Google, the cost of litigations involving overbroad and vague claims, such as used by PAEs, would only increase under deferential review of claim construction.  Google also pointed out that classifying claim construction as partly factual would encourage lower courts to defer claim construction.  This would virtually eliminate early dispositive motions and/or early informed settlement discussions.  The uncertainty caused by delayed construction "plays into the hands of" PAEs.  Reiterating that claim construction is a question of law would, according to Google, save millions of dollars in litigation costs, and would deter nuisance suits.  Of course, this begs the question whether such nuisance suits are deterred now.

Google was also not convinced that decreasing the number of reversals on appeal was a good idea.  In any event, the reversal rates might be overstated because of selection bias (only the hardest cases are appealed), and studies have shown that the reversal rate has actually been decreasing in the past decade.  Of course, a lower reversal rate is not preferable if it results in maintaining a wrong construction.

Part of the problem, according to Google, is the Federal Circuit's seemingly contradictory canons of claim construction.  For example, it is axiomatic that courts interpret claims in light of the specification, but it is also black letter that courts must not import limitations from the specification into the claims.  It is this inconsistent claim construction methodology, along with vaguely drafted claims, that are the "root causes of the uncertainty plaguing this area."  Deference is not the answer, according to Google, and will likely make problems worse.

It will be interesting to see if any of the Justices will focus on the impact claim construction review will have on patent troll litigation.  With any luck, we will have a better idea of the position the Court is likely to adopt based on the questioning at the hearing.  Of course, we will review the transcript and will provide a summary shortly after the hearing on Wednesday.

 

Written by:

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
Contact
more
less

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP 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.