Tag Archives: patent

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit Interpretation of Patent Venue: TC Heartland Holding Overturned

Posted by:  Henry M. Sneath, Esq. – Chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group at Pittsburgh, Pa. law firm Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. (PSMN® and PSMNLaw®). Mr. Sneath is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Duquesne University School of Law teaching Trade Secret Law, Trademark Law and the Law of Unfair Competition. He may be contacted at hsneath@psmn.com or 412-288-4013. See Website www.psmn.com .

The US Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s decision in TC Heartland v.  Kraft Foods and its longstanding interpretation of the patent venue statute and has reaffirmed that a corporation is a resident of the state in which it is incorporated. It had decided that question a long time ago, but the Federal Circuit and statutory changes to the general (non-patent) venue statutes had undermined the original decision of the Supreme Court in 1957 in Fourco Glass.  The court provided this analysis in TC Heartland:

“The patent venue statute,28 U. S. C. §1400(b), provides that ‘[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.’ In Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 226 (1957), this Court concluded that for purposes of §1400(b) a domestic corporation “resides” only in its State of incorporation.” 
In overturning the Fed. Cir. decision, the Court rejected the argument that 28 U.S.C. §1400 (patent venue statute) incorporates the broader definition of corporate “residence” contained in the general venue statute 28 U.S.C. 1391 as has been allowed by the Federal Circuit for years. This changes the longstanding practice of the Federal Circuit to interpret “residence” as being any state in which a defendant corporation simply conducts business. This interpretation has allowed unfettered forum shopping which generally results in shopping and filing in the Eastern District of Texas.

“We conclude that the amendments to §1391 did not modify the meaning of §1400(b) as interpreted by Fourco. We therefore hold that a domestic corporation “resides” only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” Justice Thomas authored the court’s opinion.

The big question is whether this will indeed reduce or eliminate the monopoly held by Texas on patent cases and whether it will simply shift it to Delaware where many corporations are incorporated. The court may take additional action or so too may the US Congress to prevent that simple shifting of venues from Texas to Delaware.

See the Opinion in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-341_8n59.pdf

Henry Sneath 412-288-4013 and hsneath@psmn.com

VENUE: Will Texas Lose its Dominance as a Patent Venue? Fed. Circuit Tackles Venue in the “Heartland” Case

 

FEDERAL CIRCUIT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT IN “HEARTLAND” CASE ON MAJOR VENUE ISSUE

Posted by Henry M. Sneath, Esq. – Chair of the Intellectual Property Group at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. (PSMN® and PSMNLaw®) in Pittsburgh, Pa. He may be contacted at hsneath@psmn.com or 412-288-4013. Website www.psmn.com or www.psmn.law

Federal CircuitYesterday the Federal Circuit heard oral argument on the mandamus petition filed by TC Heartland in an underlying case lodged in the District Court of Delaware ( The underlying case is Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. TC Heartland LLC, case number 1:14-cv-00028, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware). The outcome could either keep the status quo where Texas is the venue of choice for an inordinately large number of patent infringement filings, or force courts to adopt a different standard for evaluating proper venue. Texas, Delaware and the Northern District of California receive the majority of patent case filings, but Texas gets over 40% of all filings alone. Heartland, as sued by Kraft Foods, is headquartered in Indiana and believes that the case should be lodged in their home jurisdiction and not where they have little or no business contact in Delaware – beyond sales of product. On a challenge to venue, the District Court used the currently applied standard finding “venue is appropriate for a defendant in a patent infringement case where personal jurisdiction exists.” Heartland argues that the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 effectively repealed the Federal Circuit’s 1990 ruling in VE Holding v. Johnson Gas Appliance that patent suits can be brought anywhere a defendant makes sales. In other words, that personal jurisdiction and venue are essentially the same. Heartland, in its mandamus petition ( https://www.eff.org/files/2015/10/28/in_re_tc_heartland.pdf ) has asked the Federal Circuit to reevaluate the VE Holding case along with certain Congressional venue legislation and the overall venue issue.

Here are a couple of resources to assist you in following this case. The great blog at Patently-O has written on Heartland: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/10/defendant-jurisdictional-infringement.html

See also a fascinating study of what would happen to patent case filings if the Federal Circuit changed the venue standard: From Patently-O: Guest Post: What Would Happen to Patent Cases if They Couldn’t all be Filed in Texas? March 11, 2016 PatentJasonRantanen by Colleen Chien, Santa Clara University Law School and Michael Risch, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Sneath Headshot  Henry M. Sneath, Esq.

 

                        

 

Huge CMU v. Marvell Patent Infringement Case Settled in Pittsburgh

 

Posted by Henry M. Sneath, Esq. – Chair of the Intellectual Property Group at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. (PSMN® and PSMNLaw®) in Pittsburgh, Pa. He may be contacted at hsneath@psmn.com or 412-288-4013. Website www.psmn.com or www.psmn.law

marvell_chipFrom “ars technica“* publication: One of the largest patent verdict cases ever was obtained by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh Federal District Court in 2012 in the courtroom of the Hon. Nora Barry Fischer as presiding judge. CMU won a $1.17 billion jury verdict in 2012 and the court enhanced the verdict to $1.54 Billion.  The Federal Circuit cut the win significantly, by reducing the damages and eliminating the enhanced damages award, but kept the main verdict intact. The case was just settled here in Pittsburgh for $750 Million. It will allegedly be the second largest payment ever in a technology patent case. A thorough article on the matter with good links to the case history appears at web publication ars technica*(http://tinyurl.com/zwb26wg ).

*ars technica is a copyrighted publication and the references and links herein are from the website of ars technica (© Ars Technica 1998-2016)

Henry M. Sneath

Sneath Headshot

Ripple Effect from Alice and Mayo Cases Being Felt in Patent World

shutterstock_26396608By: Henry Sneath, Chair of the Intellectual Property practice at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. in Pittsburgh, Pa.  hsneath@psmn.com or 412-288-4013

Sharing a great post from Dennis Crouch and his tremendous blog: Patently-O

New Section 101 Decisions: Patents Invalid

The Supreme Court’s decisions from Alice and Mayo are beginning to really have their impact. A few examples:

  • Walker Digital v. Google (D. Del. September 2014) (data processing patent invalid under 101 as an abstract idea) (Judge Stark).
  • Genetic Tech v. LabCorp and 23AndMe (D. Del. September 2014) (method of predicting human performance based upon genetic testing invalid under 101 as a law of nature) (report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge to Judge Stark)
  • Ex parte Cote (P.T.A.B. August 2014) (computer method and hardware for ‘phase shifting’ design data invalid under 101)
  • Ex parte Jung (P.T.A.B. August 2014) (diagnostic method associated with epigenetic risk factors invalid under 101).” Patently-O.

To view the entire post – please visit Patently-O at this link: http://tinyurl.com/otj6v6n

What Is the Difference Between a Provisional and Non-Provisional Patent Application?

by: Robert Wagner, patent attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

What is the Difference Between a Provisional and Non-Provisional Patent Application?

PSMN What Is...? SeriesOne of the key decisions that an inventor needs to make in the patenting process is whether to file a provisional or non-provisional patent application, so understanding the difference between these two kinds of applications is important for inventors. Both of these types of applications serve useful roles in the patent process, but they are two very different kinds of patent applications that create very different rights.

Non-Provisional Applications

A non-provisional patent application is an application filed with the United States Patent & Trademark Office that is examined by a patent examiner and can potentially lead to the issuance of a patent. It has a number of formal requirements that must be satisfied in order to be accepted by the Patent Office. For instance, it must contain a written description of the invention with sufficient detail to both demonstrate that the inventor has invented something and to explain it in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. It generally must contain formal drawings that show various embodiments of the invention. It must be accompanied by an oath or declaration by the inventor or inventors that confirms that they invented the invention described in the application. The inventors must also identify all relevant prior art that they are aware of. Finally, it must contain a series of claims, which are what defines the scope of the patent and the protections it provides.

In general, non-provisional applications are complicated documents that must be prepared with extreme care if an inventor wants a patent that will be enforceable and that will product his or her invention to the broadest extent possible. The precise language of the claims is incredibly important, as is making sure that the written description and drawings adequately explain the invention and enable one to make and use it. As such, it takes time (and money) to draft one correctly.

Provisional Applications

A provisional application, on the other hand, is never examined by a patent examiner and can never lead to the issuance of a patent by itself. Unlike a non-provisional application, there are only two requirements for filing a provisional application—it must contain a written description of the invention and sufficient drawings (which can be informal) to understand the invention. The other formal requirements of a non-provisional application (such as formal drawings, claims, oaths, declarations, and prior art disclosures) are not necessary. A provisional patent application lasts for one year before it expires, and this one-year period cannot be extended.

Because provisional applications are significantly less formal than a non-provisional application, they can be drafted more quickly (and cheaply) and can include more information than is necessary or prudent to include in a non-provisional application. Inventors can literally attach journal articles, PowerPoint slides, photographs, hand-written drawings, etc. to the application, in addition to the narrative that describes the invention.

In order for a provisional application to lead to the issuance of a patent, it must either be converted or it must be appropriately referenced in a non-provisional application that is filed within one year of the filing date of the provisional application (this one-year date cannot be extended).

So, why would one choose to file a provisional application?

So, if a provisional application only lasts for one year and cannot, by itself, ever become a patent, why would anyone want to file one? Under the current patent laws, the public sale or disclosure of an invention before a patent application (either a non-provisional or provisional application) has been filed can act as a bar that prohibits an inventor from being able to obtain a patent on the invention in the future. A provisional application provides a way for an inventor to get an application on file before a key event so as not to prevent him or her from getting a patent later on.

For example, if a company is about to present a new product at a trade show or if an inventor is about to present a paper or give a talk at a conference, the inventor can file a provisional application that contains the materials that will be publicly disclosed, along with a sufficiently detailed write-up of the invention, before that information is disclosed without having to go through the considerable time and effort required to file a non-provisional application.

In addition, in the new first-inventor-to-file regime that exists under the America Invents Act (AIA), it may be prudent for an inventor to file a series of provisional applications as it is refining and developing a new product or invention in order to protect those ideas from another inventor filing in the Patent Office first. A provisional patent application provides a quicker and cheaper means for doing so.

Conclusion

These descriptions give you some idea of the differences between provisional and non-provisional patent applications. Both types of applications serve important roles in the patenting process, and are often utilized in concert—i.e., an inventor files a provisional patent application followed by a non-provisional patent application within a year. As with all the information in our What Is…? series, there is significantly more detail and nuance behind what is described in this article. If you are interested in obtaining a patent, you should consult a patent attorney to help you determine which application is appropriate for the circumstances you find yourself in.

Busy IP Docket for US Supreme Court Upcoming

Sneath, Henry 2012 headshotBy: Henry Sneath, Chair of the Intellectual Property practice at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.  hsneath@psmn.com or 412-288-4013

The US Supreme Court has a very busy IP docket in the next few months. Close watchers of the court predict a continuing focus on IP cases. Our friends at AIPLA provide a nice summary of the oral argument schedule of IP cases through April. We will follow these cases and post any important decisions. See AIPLA link below: http://www.aipla.org/resources2/reports/2014/Pages/140214AIPLA-Direct.aspx

Supreme Court Holds That Patentee Bears Burden of Persuasion on Infringement When Licensee Seeks a Declaratory Judgment

By: Joe Carnicella, intellectual property attorney with Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

We posted about this case in May 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court decided this matter.

First, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit did not lack subject-matter jurisdiction.  Because federal courts determining declaratory judgment jurisdiction often look to the “character” of the declaratory judgment defendant’s “threatened action,” which in this case, the threatened hypothetical action would constitute the licensor terminating a license and bringing suit for infringement under federal patent laws, the declaratory judgment action would arise under federal patent laws.

Second, the Supreme Court held that when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of infringement.  The Supreme Court based this ruling on three settled legal propositions: (1) a patentee ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement; (2) the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural leaving substantive rights unchanged; and (3) the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of a claim.

By way of background, the United States Supreme Court granted cert. to hear argument on whether, in a declaratory judgment action brought by a licensee, the licensee has the burden to prove that its products do not infringe the patent, or whether the patentee must prove infringement.  Medtronic Inc. (licensee) licensed a patent from Mirowski Family Ventures LLC (patentee / licensor) relating to a device used to stop imminent heart failure.  Medtronic subsequently created new products and then filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that its new products do not infringe the patent.  The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that Medtronic bears the burden of proving that its products do not infringe Mirowski’s patent.  Medtronic argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling, which Medtronic argued is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007).  In MedImmune, the Supreme Court ruled that a patent licensee that believes that its products do not infringe the patent is “not required . . . to break or terminate its . . . license agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent is . . . not infringed.”  According to Medtronic, the Federal Circuit’s opinion undercut the MedImmune decision because it caused a licensee to take on the significant burden and cost of a presumption that its products infringe.  In turn, Mirowski argued that this case is distinguishable from MedImmune because the licensing agreement at issue specifically required Medtronic to file a declaratory judgment action if a dispute arose.  Mirowski submitted that the Federal Circuit correctly decided that, based specifically on the contract terms between the parties, Medtronic should bear the burden of proving that it should be let out of the contract for the new products.

Supreme Court Announces It Will Hear Four New Intellectual Property Cases

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

SupremeCourtImage_1The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear four additional intellectual property cases this term, which makes nine total intellectual property cases this term so far. Brief summaries of the issues presented are provided below, along with links to more information about each of these cases from our friends at SCOTUSblog.

New Cases

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (No. 12-786)

The issue in this case is whether a party may be liable for infringement under either 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) or § 271(b) where two or more entities join together to perform all of the steps of a process claim.

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (No. 13-369)

Two issues are raised in this case. Does the Federal Circuit’s acceptance of ambiguous patent claims with multiple reasonable interpretations—so long as the ambiguity is not “insoluble” by a court—defeat the statutory requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming? And, does the presumption of validity dilute the requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming?

POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola (No. 12-761)

The issue in this case is whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a private party cannot bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (No. 13-461)

The issue in this case is whether a company “publicly performs” a copyrighted television program when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to thousands of paid subscribers over the Internet.

Previous Cases

Medtronic v. Boston Scientific Corp. (No. 12-1128)

The issue in this case is is whether, in a declaratory judgment action brought by a licensee under MedImmune, the licensee has the burden to prove that its products do not infringe the patent, or whether (as is the case in all other patent litigation, including other declaratory judgment actions), the patentee must prove infringement.

This case was argued on November 5, 2013.

Lexmark International v. Static Control Components (No. 12-873)

The issue in this case is whether the appropriate analytic framework for determining a party’s standing to maintain an action for false advertising under the Lanham Act is (1) the factors set forth in Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters (“AGC”), 459 U.S. 519, 537-45 (1983), as adopted by the Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits; (2) the categorical test, permitting suits only by an actual competitor, employed by the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits; or (3) a version of the more expansive “reasonable interest” test, either as applied by the Sixth Circuit in this case or as applied by the Second Circuit in prior cases.

This case was argued on December 3, 2013.

Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Management Systems (No. 12-1163)

The issue in this case is whether a district court’s exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (in a patent infringement lawsuit), based on its judgment that a suit is objectively baseless, is entitled to deference.

This case will be argued on February 26, 2014.

Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness (No. 12-1184)

The issue in this case is whether the Federal Circuit’s promulgation of a rigid and exclusive two-part test for determining whether a case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 improperly appropriate a district court’s discretionary authority to award attorney fees to prevailing accused infringers in contravention of statutory intent and this Court’s precedent, thereby raising the standard for accused infringers (but not patentees) to recoup fees and encouraging patent plaintiffs to bring spurious patent cases to cause competitive harm or coerce unwarranted settlements from defendants?

This case will be argued on February 26, 2014.

Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (No. 13-298)

The issue in this case is whether claims to computer-implemented inventions—including claims to systems and machine, processes, and items of manufacture—are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court.

This case will be argued on March 31, 2014.

$1Billion Pittsburgh Verdict Against Marvell Upheld on Post Trial Motions

marvell_chipPosted by Henry M. Sneath, Esq., Chair of the Intellectual Property group at Pittsburgh law firm Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

hsneath@psmn.com or 412-288-4013

Following a December 2012 Patent verdict in favor of CMU against Marvell in the amount of just over $1 Billion, the trial Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the USDC for the Western District of Pa. has denied the post trial motions filed by Marvell. Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Case No. 09-290 (W.D. Penn. Feb 28, 2013). She has also found that the infringement was willful, but has not determined yet whether to multiply the verdict as an enhanced award.  The lengthy opinion is attached for review. More analysis to come and we will follow what is surely to be an appeal to the CAFC by Marvell. Opinion available only on PACER at the moment but we will search for an independent copy to post.

UPDATE: The full decision of the Court is available here.

End of Experimental Use Exception? Hamilton Beach v. Sunbeam

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Hamilton BeachThe Federal Circuit issued an interesting decision today in Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Products, Inc. (No. 2012-1581). The opinion, written by Judge O’Malley and joined by Judge Bryson, invalidated a patent based on the patentee’s contractual agreement with its own supplier to purchase a product that utilized the patented invention more than one year before the date of the patent application.  The dissent, written by Judge Reyna, argued that this decision is inconsistent with the requirement that an offer for sale must by a commercial offer and that it will eviscerate the experimental-use exception.

Background

The patentee, Hamilton Beach, developed an improved slow cooker with clips to hold the lid of the cooker to the body of the cooker. Hamilton Beach’s original design had the clips mounted to the body. Sunbeam designed a competing version of the product with clips mounted to the lid. In response, Hamilton Beach filed a continuation patent application that specifically incorporated Sunbeam’s new design. This application eventually matured into the patent involved in the lawsuit.

In defense, Sunbeam argued that it did not infringe and that the patent was invalid as anticipated because Hamilton Beach introduced new matter into its continuation application and therefore could not take advantage of the earlier filing date. Sunbeam also argued that the patent was invalid due to an offer for sale more than one year before the earliest priority date.

More than one year before the original patent application was filed, Hamilton Beach issued a purchase order to one of its foreign suppliers, asking it to manufacture nearly 2,000 slow cookers based on Hamilton Beach’s specifications and designs. The supplier agreed to fulfill the order once it obtained a release from Hamilton Beach. The supplier’s confirmation occurred more than one year before Hamilton Beach filed its patent application. Hamilton Beach issued the release to its supplier within the one-year period before it filed its application, though.

The District Court ultimately agreed with Sunbeam on all three grounds, finding that Sunbeam did not infringe and that the patent was invalid.

The Federal Circuit’s Decision

A patent can be invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)’s on sale bar provision “when two conditions are satisfied before the critical date: (1) the claimed invention must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale; and (2) the invention must be ready for patenting.” There is an exception to the on sale bar where the use is experimental in nature, which negates the commercial requirement of § 102(b).

The Federal Circuit only addressed Sunbeam’s on-sale bar argument, finding that the offer from Hamilton Beach’s supplier to manufacturer the slow cooker once it received the release was an offer for sale under § 102(b). Because this offer occurred more than one year before Hamilton Beach filed its patent application and Hamilton Beach clearly had specifications and drawings of its invention, the patent was invalid as anticipated.

It reaching its decision, the Court noted that there need not be a binding contract for purposes of § 102(b)—only an offer is required. Moreover, the Court found that there is no “supplier exception” to the on-sale bar.

The key dispute between the majority and dissent was whether Hamilton Beach’s purchase order should have been analyzed under the experimental use exception.

The majority stated that it was expressly not considering the experimental use exception because (1) Hamilton Beach never raised this argument and (2) the order of almost 2,000 slow cookers strongly suggested that the use was not experimental. The majority went out of its way to specifically state that this opinion has no bearing on that exception:

“Experimental use” is simply not at issue. There is, thus, no threat that this decision will have any impact on that defense; it certainly will not “eviscerate” that defense as the dissent fears.

The dissent disagreed, finding that Hamilton Beach had raised this issue and that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the 2,000 units were being ordered in order to work out a defect in the design. The dissent further expressed concern that this ruling would “eviscerate” the experimental use exception and create havoc for companies that have third parties manufacture their goods.

Conclusion

It is somewhat difficult to predict how this case will be used in the future, but there are certainly some points to take away from it. First, companies need to be aware that contractual negotiations and offers with their own suppliers potentially can be used against them to invalidate their patents. This highlights the need to file provisional applications and keep track of the relevant dates so as not run into this issue. Second, where a use is experimental in nature, it is helpful to document its experimental nature for use later in litigation. Third, the majority fairly clearly states that this decision does not destroy or even implicate the experimental use exception, so that exception should still be available if properly raised at the trial court. Finally, this case highlights the importance of preserving this argument explicitly and clearly.