Federal Circuit Review - July 2017

by Knobbe Martens
Contact

Knobbe Martens

District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional

In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion in determining that the case was not exceptional, where the plaintiff was willfully ignorant of the prior art and had engaged in a pattern of vexatious litigation to extract nuisance-value settlements.

Rothschild sued ADS for patent infringement.  ADS emailed Rothschild alleging that the asserted patent was ineligible under § 101 and anticipated under § 102(a)(1).  ADS next filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings raising its § 101 argument.  ADS also sent Rothschild a Rule 11 Safe Harbor Notice and a copy of its proposed Rule 11(b) motion for sanctions, citing purportedly anticipatory prior art.  Rothschild then moved to voluntarily dismiss, within the safe-harbor period.  ADS opposed the motion to dismiss, and cross-moved for attorneys’ fees, alleging Rothschild’s suit was objectively unreasonable. The District Court granted Rothschild’s motion to dismiss, but denied ADS’s cross-motion for attorneys’ fees.

The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of attorney’s fees under § 285, finding that the district court abused its discretion in not finding the case to be exceptional.  In particular, the district court failed to consider Rothschild’s willful ignorance of the prior art, evidenced in part by Rothschild’s affidavits stating that neither it nor its counsel conducted an analysis of the prior art cited in the cross-motion for attorneys’ fees, yet it maintained a good faith belief that the asserted patent was valid.  There was also no evidence suggesting that Rothschild or its attorneys evaluated the defendant’s products or publicly available information prior to bringing suit.  The Federal Circuit also stated that the district court misjudged Rothschild’s conduct in other litigation, stating that undisputed evidence of vexatious litigation against more than 50 other defendants warranted an affirmative exceptional-case finding. 

Lastly, the district court erred by conflating Rule 11’s safe harbor provision with a § 285 attorneys’ fee award.  Unreasonable conduct does not need to be independently sanctionable under Rule 11 to be exceptional under § 285.


Federal Circuit Holds That “Means” Did Not Invoke Means-Plus-Function Statute

In Skky, Inc. v. Mindgeek, s.a.r.l., Appeal No. 2016-2018, the Federal Circuit held that the use of the word “means” in the claim term “wireless device means” created a presumption that the term was a means-plus-function limitation invoking § 112 ¶ 6, but that presumption was overcome because the claim term recited sufficient structure. 

MindGeek filed a petition for inter partes review of Skky’s patent.  The challenged claims were directed to a method of transmitting multimedia files to a “wireless device means.”  The Board found that “wireless device means” did not invoke § 112 ¶ 6 because the phrase was not associated with a function.  Under this construction, the Board found the challenged claims invalid as obvious in view of two references. Skky appealed. 

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding.  The Federal Circuit noted that it is not bound by the examiner’s view that the claim term invoked § 112 ¶ 6.  Moreover, the Federal Circuit stated that determining whether a claim term invokes § 112 ¶ 6 does not turn on the mere presence of the word “means.”  Instead, the determination turns on whether the claim term is understood by the skilled artisan to designate structure.  Here, the term “wireless device” is used in common parlance to designate structure.  Despite use of the term “means,” the phrase lacked any associated function.  Thus, the presumption that the phrase was a means-plus-function limitation was overcome.   Under this construction, the Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s determination of obviousness.  


Supreme Court Issues First Decision On Patent Provisions of Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009

In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. et al., No. 15-1039, the Supreme Court held that: (1) the requirement that a biosimilar applicant provide application materials and manufacturing information to the reference drug manufacturer is not enforceable by injunction under federal law; and (2) the applicant’s required notice of commercial marketing may be made prior to FDA approval.

Sandoz applied to the FDA for approval of a drug that is biosimilar to Amgen’s product under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.  In its notice, Sandoz refused to provide the application and manufacturing information required by 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(2)(A).  Sandoz also stated that it intended to begin marketing the product commercially immediately upon receipt of approval from the FDA (and at least 180 days from that notice).  Amgen sued under § 262(l)(9)(C) and California unfair competition law, seeking an injunction requiring disclosure of the information, and requiring that the 180-day notice begin after FDA approval.

The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of Amgen’s state law claims and further held that federal law does not provide for this type of injunctive relief.  The Federal Circuit held for Amgen that an applicant must provide notice of commercial marketing only after the FDA has approved the biosimilar.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s ruling that injunctive relief is not available under federal law, explaining that the declaratory remedies of § 262(l)(9)(C) are the exclusive federal remedies for a violation of § 262(l)(2)(A).  However, the Supreme Court remanded to the Federal Circuit to consider whether an injunction could be available under state law based on a violation of § 262(l)(2)(A) being “unlawful” there.

The Supreme Court then reversed the Federal Circuit on the issue of notice timing, holding that the applicant’s notice of commercial marketing may be given prior to FDA licensure.  In interpreting the language of § 262(l)(8)(A), the Court held that the term “licensed” referred back to the biosimilar which is to be commercially marketed and has no grammatical connection to the notice required of the applicant.


Federal Circuit Reverses ITC Indefiniteness Ruling

In One-E-Way, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Appeal No. 2016-2105, the Federal Circuit reversed a summary determination of indefiniteness of the term “virtually free from interference.”

One-E-Way filed a complaint with the ITC against Sony and other respondents for infringement of two of its patents.  Those patents related to wireless digital audio systems that provide users with private listening even when operated within a shared space.  Each asserted claim contained the term “virtually free from interference.”  At the International Trade Commission, respondents argued that the term did not appear in the asserted patents’ shared specification and is indefinite.  The administrative law judge granted summary determination of indefiniteness, invalidating all asserted claims.  The Commission affirmed and One-E-Way appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, agreeing with One-E-Way’s proposed construction that “virtually free from interference” here means that “eavesdropping cannot occur.”  During the prosecution of a related parent application, the applicant explained that a prior art reference “does not teach, disclose, or suggest such a relationship where interference is virtually eliminated (e.g. where eavesdropping cannot occur)…”  The Federal Circuit explained that the applicant’s statement was “entirely consistent with the specification” and provided a POSITA with guidance as to the term’s meaning.  The ITC and respondents had argued that the statement is irrelevant because it was made in the context of claims that recited “free from interference” rather than “virtually free from interference.”  The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that the statement’s very language employs the term “virtually.”  The Federal Circuit explained that the term “virtually” is a term of degree and although applicant did not provide a technical definition for that term, “[f]or the purpose of definiteness, the term is not required to have a technical measure of the amount of interference.”  Because a POSITA, viewing the term in light of the specification and prosecution history, would be informed of the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty as required by the Supreme Court’s Nautilus standard, the term satisfies the definiteness requirement.

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.