Tag Archives: pittsburgh patent litigation

Confession: I Have a Blackberry (Blackberry Files Patent Suit!)

Blackberry is still in the hunt. I have one. I need the keyboard. Can’t  seem to make even my skinny fingers hit the virtual keyboard letters and numbers on an iPhone. I get teased by my kids. People on airplanes pull out their Blackberrys and say “Hey – you’re a dinosaur too.” However, look at Blackberry now flexing their patent muscles and suing Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram. Take that big boys. Thanks to Steve Brachmann and IPWatchdog for bringing us the story at this link: http://tinyurl.com/y9drr6hk . Blackberry pleads pre-emptory claims that seek to avoid dismissal per §101 “Alice” defenses. This “getting ahead of 101” in pleading is becoming the rage in patent suits. Great article. Thanks IPWatchdog.

Posted by Henry M. Sneath, Esq. at HoustonHarbaugh P.C., Pittsburgh, Pa.    412-288-4013 or sneathhm@hh-law.com

Advertisements

Walmart USPTO Application for “Drone Pollinators” Published

Walmart has applied for a Drone Pollinator presented in the recently published application as “Systems and Methods for Pollinating Crops Via Unmanned Vehicles.” Here is Application # US2018/0065749 A1 at this link from FreshPatents.com:  http://images2.freshpatents.com/pdf/US20180065749A1.pdf
The PTO App abstract describes essentially the same process used by Bees, and scientists at Walmart, Harvard and many other institutions have been working to create an efficient way to pollinate many of the plants from which we get our food during the last two decades of declining bee populations. Here is a good article from Science Alert detailing and linking to some of the efforts to create a drone pollinator:   http://tinyurl.com/y93a7z7y  
Here is a photo of the Harvard latest edition drone “RoboBee” which allegedly cannot yet be remotely controlled. The Walmart patent claims such an ability. We will follow.

Posted by Henry M. Sneath, Esq. at HoustonHarbaugh, P.C. in Pittsburgh, Pa.
  Mr. Sneath can be contacted at 412-288-4013 or at: https://www.hh-law.com/professional/henry-m-sneath/ He chairs the IP Practice group at HoustonHarbaugh and is Co-Chair of the Litigation Practice Group.

Merger Grows Pittsburgh Business and Litigation Law Firm Houston Harbaugh, P.C.: Expands Litigation Practice

 

Pittsburgh based law firm Houston Harbaugh, P.C. has announced its merger with the former and preeminent litigation boutique Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. (PSMN®) effective January 1, 2018. The merger creates a 43 lawyer firm with particular strengths in Business Law and Business Litigation, Employment, Employee Benefits/ERISA, Environmental and Energy Law, Estates and Trusts, Health Care, Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Defense, Immigration, Intellectual Property, Oil and Gas, Products Liability and Catastrophic Injury Defense, Public Finance and Real Estate. This blog will feature posts on the law and litigation of Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Trade Secrets, Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), Cyber-Security, Technology matters and updates on the tremendous growth of the technology sector in Pittsburgh. Houston Harbaugh is proud to be among the regional law firms which are poised to provide high level, efficient, cost effective legal services for the new Eds, Meds, Energy and Technology economy in Pittsburgh, Ohio and West Virginia.

For more information on the merged firm please contact Marketing Director Anna Marks at 412-281-5060. See News Release regarding the merger here at: https://www.hh-law.com/houston-harbaugh-grows-litigation-practice/

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 Houston Harbaugh, P.C. 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 sneathhm@hh-law.com or 412-288-4013. See Website www.hh-law.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 sneathhm@hh-law.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.

 

                        

 

Federal Circuit Clarifies Limits of US Patent Law

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

Hong Kong at nightThe United States patent laws have a territorial scope and prohibit individuals from making, using, offering for sale, and selling any patented invention within the United States without authority from the patent owner. 28 U.S.C. § 271(a). The United States is just one part of a much bigger world, and the question sometimes arises as to whether an accused infringer’s foreign activities are within the scope of the U.S. patent laws. In Halo Electronics, Inc. v Pulse Electronics, Inc., (No. 2013-1472 and -1656), the Federal Circuit had to address this issue and concluded that they were not.

Background

Halo is a supplier of electronic components and owned three patents related to surface mount electronic packages containing transformers for mounting on a printed circuit board inside an electronic device. Halo filed suit against Pulse for selling products containing electronic packages that used this technology.

Pulse designed and manufactured the accused products overseas and only sold minority of them in the United States. For its foreign orders, Pulse received purchase orders in its foreign offices and then shipped and delivered them to foreign locations.

One of Pulse’s major customers was Cisco, who incorporated some of Pulse’s products into its internet routers, which were sold all over the world. Pulse employees would sometimes meet with Cisco in the United States to negotiate prices, attend sales meetings with customers, meeting with design engineers, and provide post-sale support.

Pulse obtained summary judgment that it did not directly infringe with respect to products that were made, shipped, and delivered outside of the United States. At trial, the jury determined, among other things, that Pulse directly infringed with respect to products sold in the United States and induced infringement with respect to products that were incorporated into other products that were sold in the United States.

Halo appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit Affirms

In deciding the appeal, the Federal Circuit had to consider the geographic scope of infringement under § 271(a). The Court first looked at the statutory language and history behind § 271(a). It noted that the concept of a sale has physical and conceptual dimensions—where the buyer and seller are located and where a legally-operative act occurred regarding the sale.

It concluded that when no substantial activities occur within the United States there could be no potential liability under § 271(a):

Consistent with all of our precedent, we conclude that, when substantial activities of a sales transaction, including the final formation of a contract for sale encompassing all essential terms as well as the delivery and performance under that sales contract, occur entirely outside the United States, pricing and contracting negotiations in the United States alone do not constitute or transform those extraterritorial activities into a sale within the United States for purposes of § 271(a).

Thus, it affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of no direct infringement for sales that did not occur within the United States.

It then turned to whether there could be infringement via an offer for sale. It reached the same result, finding that “[a]n offer to sell, in order to be an infringement, must be an offer contemplating sale in the United States.” Because all of these offers involved sales that occurred overseas, there could not be direct infringement.

The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s summary judgment of no infringement with respect to the foreign sales.

Judge O’Malley’s Concurrence

Judge O’Malley concurred fully with the majority’s decision but wrote about another issue in the case. The district court found that Pulse’s infringement was not willful because it had an objectively reasonable invalidity defense. Therefore, it found that Halo could not satisfy the first prong of the Seagate test—that “a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.”

It did not matter that the invalidity defense was first developed during litigation. The objection prong of the test requires consideration of the totality of the evidence, including all defenses developed during the litigation and presented at trial, not just those considered by the accused infringer before being sued. The Federal Circuit affirmed this determination.

Judge O’Malley agreed with the decision but felt that it was time for the Federal Circuit to revisit its willful infringement standards in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014), and Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014). She also questioned whether willful infringement should be an issue for the court or the jury. She recommended that the entire Court take up this issue en banc in order to clarify the law.

Conclusion

United States patents have geographic limitations. Companies, especially those with presences in multiple countries, need to be aware of this scope in order to make sure that they are complying with U.S. patent laws. It will also be interesting to see if the full Court takes up Judge O’Malley’s urging to reconsider the Court’s willfulness jurisprudence.

 

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

Court Awards Limited Enhanced Damages in CMU v. Marvell Case

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

marvell_chipYesterday, Judge Nora Barry Fischer issued her opinion in the Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:09-cv-00290-NBF) and awarded an additional 23% in enhanced damages above and beyond the jury’s $1.17 billion award. In total, with all enhancements and interest awards, Marvell is facing at least a $1,535,889,387.60 damage award with an ongoing $0.50/chip royalty for the lifetime of the patent.

The jury returned a $1.17 billion award in December 2012, finding that Marvell willfully infringed two of CMU’s patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,201,839 and 6,438,180). It awarded a royalty of $0.50 per chip Marvell sold using the patented technology. In September 2013, the Court denied Marvell’s post-trial motions and determined that Marvell’s infringement was willful. The Court yesterday determined that some enhancement of the damage award was appropriate, although not to the extent requested by CMU (who wanted an additional 200% in damages).

In weighing the parties’ arguments as to whether the damage award should be enhanced, Judge Fischer appeared to focus primarily on three factors. First, she was concerned that a double or triple award of damages could cripple Marvell. Second, she was concerned about CMU’s “inexcusable” delay for almost 6 years after learning of Marvell’s infringement before taking action. Finally, she balanced these factors against Marvell’s willful infringement and its actions before CMU filed suit.

Weighing all of these factors (and the others under the Read test), Judge Fischer concluded that a 23% enhancement properly balanced all of the relevant interests.

In this decision, Judge Fischer also awarded damages on the sales of additional infringing products that were not part of the jury’s verdict but occurred before entry of judgment (this was uncontested), established a post-judgment royalty rate of $0.50 per infringing chip sold, and set a 0.14% post-judgment interest rate. She denied CMU’s motion for a permanent injunction and for prejudgment interest, finding that neither were warranted under the circumstances.

Given the amounts at issue, one expects that these decisions will not be the final word in this case, and that at least the Federal Circuit will be looking at this case on appeal.

$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.

The Battle Over the Seeds Continues

by: Kelly A. Williams, a shareholder at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

SeedsA coalition of famers, seed sellers, and agricultural organizations that challenged Monsanto’s patents on genetically-modified seeds is appealing a decision of the Federal Circuit on June 10, 2013 to the U.S. Supreme Court in Organic Seed Growers and Trade Asss’n v. Monsanto Co. (The petition for a writ of certiorari may be found here).  The plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling of non-infringement and invalidity of Monsanto’s genetically modified seed patents. These are the same patents that Monsanto successfully enforced in Bowman v. Monsanto, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 13, 2013. The Federal Circuit held that there was no justiciable case or controversy because Monsanto had made binding assurances that it would not take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes, and the plaintiffs fell within this group.