Federal Circuit Review - February 2018

by Knobbe Martens
Contact

Knobbe Martens

Improperly Drafted Employment Agreement Leads to Dismissal of Patent Case Due to Lack of Standing

In Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corporation et al., Appeal Nos. 2016-2309, 2016-2310, 2016-2311, the Federal Circuit held that a co-inventor did not transfer ownership interests in a patent under a California employment agreement that included a “will assign” provision, a trust provision, and a quitclaim provision.

Advanced Video sued the defendants for patent infringement.  The district court dismissed the case, finding that Advanced Video lacked standing because a co-inventor had not assigned ownership rights in the patent pursuant to the Employment Agreement and was not a party to the action. 

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the future-tense “will assign” language in the Employment Agreement did not itself effect an assignment.  Furthermore, the trust provision undermined the existence of an immediate assignment because an inventor could not immediately assign patent rights and at the same time hold them in trust.  Even if Advanced Video was a beneficiary of a trust, the Federal Circuit explained that, under California trust law, generally the beneficiary is not the party in interest and may not sue in the name of the trust.  Finally, the quitclaim provision of the Employment Agreement merely waived the co-inventor’s rights to patents that were assigned.  However, as no patent rights were ever assigned, the Federal Circuit found that the quitclaim provision was inapplicable.  Accordingly, Advanced Video did not have full ownership of the patent, and because the co-inventor was not a party to the suits and had not consented to the suits, Advanced Video lacked standing and the district court’s dismissal of the cases was affirmed. 

Judge O’Malley concurred that the judgment was compelled by binding precedent but argued that the precedent serving as the predicate for the case was wrong.  The concurring opinion examined Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, case law addressing joinder under Rule 19, and the Patent Act itself, concluding that that Rule 19, which allows for involuntary joinder, should be applied to cases such as the instant case.  The concurring opinion then called for the Federal Circuit to reconsider en banc its precedent that a co-owner or co-inventor cannot be involuntarily joined pursuant to Rule 19. 

Judge Newman dissented, arguing that Advanced Video had full ownership of the patent and standing to sue.  Judge Newman argued that the Employment Agreement, including the “will assign,” trust, and quitclaim provisions, demonstrated a mutual intent and understanding of employer and employee to effect an assignment of patent rights.  Judge Newman also disagreed with the majority’s findings regarding the trust, arguing that the trust vested immediately upon creation of an invention under the Employment Agreement, and that the beneficiary could act on behalf of the trust if the trustee were absent or inactive. 


Damages Must Be Apportioned Between the Patented Improvement and the Conventional Components

In Exmark Manufacturing Company v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, Appeal No. 2016-2197, the Federal Circuit held that reexaminations of patents confirming validity are not dispositive of validity in district court.  Furthermore, when a patent covers the infringing product as a whole, damages must be apportioned between the patented improvement and conventional components, and expert testimony on damages must adequately tie a proposed reasonable royalty to the facts of the case.

Exmark sued Briggs for infringement of a patent directed to a lawn mower having improved flow control baffles.  Three separate reexaminations confirmed the patentability of Exmark’s patent.  The district court, relying solely on the fact that the claim at issue had survived multiple reexaminations, granted summary judgment that the claim was not invalid.  Following a jury award of damages for willful infringement, the district court denied Briggs’s motion for a new trial on damages.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of no invalidity.  Although the district court stated it had given the reexaminations “some, though not determinative, weight,” the Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that the conclusory opinion written by the district court offered no other explanation for its determination.  In doing so, the Federal Circuit found the district court had improperly deferred entirely to the PTO and neglected its obligation to reach an independent conclusion.  The higher “clear and convincing” standard of proof in district court does not preclude the district court from reaching a different conclusion on validity than that reached by the PTO.  In particular, because the district court suggested it was adopting a broader claim interpretation than that applied by the PTO during the reexaminations, the district court was required to independently assess validity in view of that construction.

The Federal Circuit also vacated the jury’s damages award.  While the Federal Circuit agreed that it was permissible to apportion damages through the royalty rate rather than the royalty base, it found that Exmark’s expert failed to adequately tie her proposed royalty rate of 5% to the facts of the case.  The Federal Circuit noted that the expert considered the Georgia-Pacific factors, but she failed to explain the extent to which those factors impacted the royalty calculation.  It was not sufficient to analyze the Georgia-Pacific factors without carefully tying those factors to the proposed royalty rate.  Additionally, the expert’s analysis ignored the value added by components covered by other patents as well as non-patented elements such as durability, reliability, and branding.  The Federal Circuit remanded to the district court for new determinations of invalidity and damages, including, if necessary, a new trial on damages.


Final Decision by Board Invalidating a Patent Has Preclusive Effect on Co-Pending IPR

In MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1039, the Federal Circuit reiterated that final written decisions by an administrative tribunal can have a preclusive effect.

MaxLinear filed an IPR petition on claims of a CF CRESPE patent.  The Board instituted review on the independent claims and certain dependent claims and ultimately issued a final written decision upholding the patentability of the challenged claims.  In its final written decision, however, the Board limited its analysis to the independent claims and did not separately analyze the dependent claims.  MaxLinear appealed the Board’s decision of patentability.

Pending the appeal, the Board issued final written decisions for two other IPR proceedings concerning the same CF CRESPE patent but considering different prior art and brought by a third party.  In these proceedings, which were subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit, the Board held that certain claims of the CF CRESPE patent were unpatentable, including the independent claims that were held patentable in the IPR proceeding that was the subject of this appeal.

The parties agreed that the prior decisions in the other two IPR proceedings that were upheld by the Federal Circuit had a preclusive effect in this proceeding.  The Federal Circuit noted that in light of the decision in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015), the parties could hardly argue otherwise.  Issue preclusion prevents a party from re-litigating an issue and applies in the administrative context.  Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held that the decisions in the two other IPR proceedings finally resolved the issue of unpatentability of the independent claims.  However, because the Board failed to separately analyze the dependent claims, the Federal Circuit remanded and instructed the Board to consider the patentability of the dependent claims in view of the prior art cited in the other IPR proceedings.  The Federal Circuit noted that collateral estoppel is not limited “to patent claims that are identical” and instructed the Board to decide whether the remaining claims are patentably distinct from the independent claims.


Claims Directed to a Specific Improvement Over Prior Systems for Presenting Information on Small Displays Are Patent Eligible Under § 101

In Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-2684, 2017-1922, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to a specific improvement over prior systems for summarizing and presenting information on display interfaces for electronic devices are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Core Wireless sued LG alleging infringement of patent claims directed to improved display interfaces, particularly for electronic devices with small screens.  The improved interfaces allow a user to more quickly access data and applications in electronic devices by displaying a limited list of commonly accessed functions and data.  LG moved for summary judgment that the claims constituted patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were directed to the abstract idea of displaying a summary window while an application is unlaunched.  The district court found that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea because the claims recited concepts such as “summary window” and “unlaunched application,” which are specific to devices like computers and cellphones.  The jury found all asserted claims to be infringed and not anticipated.  The district court denied LG’s motions for judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement and anticipation.  LG appealed to the Federal Circuit.  

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.  Concerning § 101, the Federal Circuit noted that the claims recited a specific improvement over conventional user interface methods resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.  In its analysis, the Federal Circuit pointed to claim limitations that disclose the specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user.  It also highlighted language in the specification indicating that the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens.  Finding that the asserted claims were not directed to an abstract idea, the Federal Circuit did not proceed to the second step of the Alice inquiry.  Concerning LG’s motions for judgement as a matter of law, the Federal Circuit rejected LG’s argument that the relevant claims were anticipated.  Finally, the Federal Circuit rejected LG’s non-infringement arguments based on the construction of “unlaunched state” as “not running” rather than “not displayed.”

Judge Wallach dissented in part, arguing that the district should have construed “unlaunched state” to mean “not running” as LG proposed, instead of “not displayed.”  In his analysis, Judge Wallach pointed to the distinct and independent meanings of “display” and “launch” as used in the claims as well as the specification.

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.
Custom Email Digest
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.