CAFC Making it Easier to Get an Injunction?
Several weeks ago, the Federal Circuit issued an interesting decision in Aria Diagnostics v. Sequenom, which seems to continue a recent trend showing that at least certain panels of the Federal Circuit would like to see a different interpretation by district courts relative to the injunction standards.
Aria (known as Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. at the time of appeal) sought a declaration that its Harmony test did not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 (the ’540 patent), owned by defendant Isis Innovation Limited (Isis) and licensed by Isis exclusively to Sequenom, Inc. Sequenom counter-claimed, alleging that Ariosa’s Harmony test infringes the ’540 patent. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Sequenom’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Ariosa from making, using, or selling that test. However, the Federal Circuit (per Chief Judge Rader, with Judges Dyke and Reyna) determined that the district court incorrectly interpreted the asserted claims and improperly balanced factors regarding issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Most interesting was the discussion about how the district court failed to properly consider the familiar four-factor injunction test. The district found that price and market erosion would occur. Under Federal Circuit precedent, price erosion, loss of goodwill, damage to reputation, and loss of business opportunities are all valid grounds for finding irreparable harm. Yet, the district court denied the injunction for four specific reasons.
CAFC Upholds ITC Exclusion Order in Rule 36 Judgment
“Man Controlling Trade” outside the ITC in DC, by NY sculptor Michael Lantz (1942).
The United States Court of Appeals recently issued a Rule 36 Summary Affirmance of the April 27, 2012 Final Determination of the International Trade Commission (hereinafter “Commission” or “ITC”) in In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same. A Rule 36 judgment can be entered without an opinion when it is determined by the panel that any one of five conditions exist and a written opinion would not have precedential value. See What is a Rule 36 Judgment? The Federal Circuit judgment affirmed the Commission’s general exclusion order, “prohibiting the unlicensed importation of infringing ground fault circuit interrupters and products containing same,” inhibiting infringement on Leviton Manufacturing’s U.S. Patent No. 7,737,809.
The Commission instituted this particular investigation on October 8, 2010, based on a complaint and an amended complaint filed by Leviton Manufacturing Co., of Melville, New York (“Leviton”). The complaint and amended complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ground fault circuit interrupters and products containing the same by reason of infringement of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, 23-26, and 32-36 of U.S. Patent No. 7,463,124 (“the ’124 patent”); claims 1-11, 13-28, 30-59, 61-64, and 74-83 of U.S. Patent No. 7,737,809 (“the ’809 patent”); and claims 1-4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,151 (“the ’151 patent”).
08.19.13 | CAFC, ITC, Patent Issues | Gene Quinn
CAFC OKs JMOL When Expert Changes Testimony at Trial
Recently, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Rembrandt Vision Technologies v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care. The issue in the case primarily centered around whether the district court correctly granted judgment as a matter of law that J&J did not infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 5, 712,327.
The technology at issue in the case related to contact lenses. Two important characteristics of a contact lens are its permeability to oxygen and the wettability of its surface. By the 1980s, both hard and soft contact lenses that were permeable to oxygen were well known, but these contact lens often lacked a highly wettable surface.
The contact lens claimed in the ‘327 patent had both a highly wettable surface and were permeable to oxygen. The patent disclosed a soft gas-permeable lens that contained an acrylic layer on the surface of the lens body. This acrylic layer increased the wettability and comfort of the lens.
08.14.13 | CAFC, Patent Issues, posts | Gene Quinn
Federal Circuit Affirms Tossed $18 Million Jury Verdict
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in Novozymes v. Du Pont, where there was a two-judge majority and a dissent filed by Chief Judge Rader. The question dealt with whether or not the district court properly overturned the jury verdict with a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) after the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and damages in excess of $18 million. Chief Rader thought there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict, but Judges Schall and Bryson disagreed.
How can there be a difference of opinion about whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict?
Background
Novozymes A/S and Novozymes North America, Inc. (the plaintiff-appellant) appealed a decision relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,713,723 (the “’723 patent”) from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin to the Federal Circuit. Novozymes sued DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, Genencor International Wisconsin, Inc., Danisco US Inc., and Danisco USA Inc. (collectively, “DuPont”) in Wisconsin alleging infringement of the ‘723 patent.
07.29.13 | CAFC, posts | Gene Quinn
What Is a Rule 36 Judgment?
Recently, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in IA Labs CA v. Nintendo Co., LTD, which upheld Nintendo’s victory in the patent litigation brought by IA Labs in the United States Federal District Court for the District of Maryland. See Nintendo Wins Attorneys’ Fees Fighting Baseless Patent Lawsuit. The decision was hardly extraordinary. It simply read: “AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.” This is what is called a “Rule 36 judgment,” or sometimes a “summary affirmance.”
A Rule 36 judgment can be entered without an opinion when it is determined by the panel that any one of five conditions exist and a written opinion would not have precedential value. The five conditions are:
- The judgment, decision, or order of the trial court appealed from is based on findings that are not clearly erroneous.
- The evidence supporting the jury’s verdict is sufficient.
- The record supports summary judgment, directed verdict, or judgment on the pleadings.
- The decision of an administrative agency warrants affirmance under the standard of review in the statute authorizing the petition for review.
- A judgment or decision has been entered without an error of law.
07.15.13 | CAFC | Gene Quinn
No Comments
08.26.13 | CAFC, Patent Issues | Gene Quinn