What began as a run-of-the-mill patent lawsuit for a popular sportswear company spiraled into a six year litigation war; one that, when the dust of the suit at law settled, resulted in accusations of “racketeering.”
Pat Concannon and John Loughnane, partners in Nutter’s Intellectual Property and Corporate and Transactions Departments, respectively, analyzed the significance of the upcoming oral arguments in the Supreme Court case Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
In the Q&A, “Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC: Will the Supreme Court Clarify the Rights of Trademark Licensees Upon Rejection?,” Pat and John discussed why there is such great uncertainty on this issue, leading to widely different results among the lower courts; how licensees can protect themselves if a licensor files for bankruptcy; and what they predict will happen in the Tempnology case. According to Pat and John, when licensing trademark rights, you need to think about a host of issues at the outset including the impact of a licensor declaring bankruptcy.
On January 22, the Supreme Court clarified an important issue of patent law that had been left open since the enactment of the America Invents Act several years ago.
The patent laws bar a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “on sale” before the effective filing date of the patent application claiming that invention. The Supreme Court had previously announced that the “on sale bar” came into effect when the invention was “the subject of a commercial offer for sale” and was “ready for patenting”—that is, it must be sufficiently developed that a patent application could be filed, and there must be a commercial offer for sale. If these conditions are met, the offer can bar a subsequent patent application. The appeals court confirmed that this is true even when the offer for sale was confidential.
On June 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in WesternGeco LLC v. ION GeoPhysical, which addresses the ability of a patent owner to collect lost profits from sales abroad for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2). Under this subsection of the Patent Act, it is an act of infringement to supply components of an invention to be combined overseas in an infringing device. The Court—in a 7-to-2 decision—held that lost profits are available from foreign sales for a patent owner who proves such infringement.
Nutter lawyers Heather Repicky and Alison Casey recently contributed an article to IPWatchdog that addresses changes in Massachusetts local patent rules. In the article, “What You Need to Know About the District of Massachusetts’ New Local Patent Rules,” Heather and Alison discuss how the new set of rules aims to make the Commonwealth a more attractive venue for patent litigation by streamlining patent cases. Please contact the authors if you’d like to learn more about this topic.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank in 2014, there has been an increasing trend in district courts granting pretrial dispositive motions to effect early dismissal of patent infringement cases under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Last month, however, the Federal Circuit issued two patent-friendly decisions that preclude such early dismissal when there are factual disputes that underlie the ultimate legal conclusion of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The District of Massachusetts is poised to overhaul its local patent rules with the objective of making the Commonwealth a more attractive venue for patent litigation. The new proposed rules aim to streamline patent cases by focusing on efficiency, reaching outcomes more quickly, and achieving consistency across the entire bench. The prior version of Local Rule 16.6 acted more like a guide, suggesting issues that the parties should consider and offering a template for a schedule. That template, however, was not mandatory and resulted in a case-by-case approach by both the bench and the bar. In contrast, the proposed local patent rules require a schedule that, absent extraordinary circumstances, will apply. In addition, the proposed rules bring this district in line with several other courts around the country that have adopted patent-specific rules.
In a stinging decision that will impact its patent portfolio, Arthrex recently suffered a setback in a patent dispute over suture anchors with Smith & Nephew. The Federal Circuit upheld a PTAB judgment entering adverse judgment against claims 1-9 of Arthrex’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,821,541, which S&N challenged in a 2016 IPR. This decision will affect the related patent portfolio because of the estoppel provisions of 37 CFR 42.73.
The Federal Circuit rejected the patent venue test recently established by Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas, the judge who has been reported to preside over about one quarter of all patent infringement cases in America. The three judge panel held that Judge Gilstrap abused his discretion and applied an incorrect legal standard in Raytheon Co. v. Cray Inc. when he refused to transfer the patent suit after applying his own four-factor test and determined defendant Cray maintained “a regular and established place of business” in the district where only one of its employees worked from home. As a result of its findings, the Federal Circuit ordered the case to be transferred.
Maximizing the protection and value of intellectual property assets is often the cornerstone of a business's success and even survival. In this blog, Nutter's Intellectual Property attorneys provide news updates and practical tips in patent portfolio development, IP litigation, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and licensing.