Patent Litigation

On Nov. 13, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Mayer, and Judge Chen issued a unanimous decision in Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp. On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed a grant of judgment as a matter of law by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin that the plaintiff failed to prove its infringement case under §§35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 271(f)(1). The panel affirmed the district court's denial for a new trial on damages and infringement, and reaffirmed its prior holdings on enablement, licensing, and active inducement issues.

Written opinions of counsel are gaining renewed interest as a valuable tool to limit liability for willful patent infringement. A patent opinion that is competently written by a registered patent attorney sets forth the factual and legal basis for finding a patent not infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable. However, to be effective, the timing of the rendered patent opinion may be critical.

Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split, Finds That Venue Is Not Waived Under Rule 12(h)(1)(A) for Cases Brought before TC HeartLand
Federal Circuit Reverses Award of Lost Profits Because Product Sold to a Single Customer Was an Available Non- Infringing Alternative

Venue in patent cases lies "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." Since 1990, the Federal Circuit interpreted the term "resides" coextensively with the general venue statute such that patent venue lay where the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction. But this year, the Supreme Court greatly narrowed that definition in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. The Federal Circuit, in turn, interpreted the newly-relevant alternative phrase. After two decades of relaxed patent venue rules, these decisions work a seismic shift in patent litigation.

After Several IP-Heavy Seasons, the 2017 Term At the U.S. Supreme Court Looks to Be a Quiet One for Intellectual Property — with One Big Exception

The 2017 term at the U.S. Supreme Court looks to be a quiet one for intellectual property. But with one potential bang in the middle.

Federal Circuit: Collateral Estoppel Can Apply to Patents With Claims Similar To Those in Previously Litigated
Federal Circuit Uses 'Rule of Reason' To Determine Patent Owner Had an Early Reduction to Practice

Split Federal Circuit Declined to Reconsider Panel's Decision that Lost Profits Based on the Panduit Factors Are Fully Apportioned

On Sept. 1, 2017, a split Federal Circuit declined to rehear a panel decision in Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., a case that could have significant implications for lost profit damages and apportionment.

U.S. Patent Office statistics show that the PTAB has found at least one claim of a challenged patent to be unpatentable in over 80% of IPRs. Given these odds, and the fact that institution of an IPR is not appealable, a patent owner's best shot at preserving its patent rights intact is to defeat institution of the IPR trial in the first instance.