Patent Law Practice Center

Jury finds Corel willfully infringed Microsoft Office patents

A jury from the Northern District of California recently awarded Microsoft Corporation a total of $278,000 in a patent infringement action against Corel Corporation and Corel, Inc. (collectively “Corel”). See Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Corporation et al (Case: 5:15-cv-05836-EJD). Microsoft had requested more than $1 million in damages for the infringement of patents related to Microsoft Office (i.e., the Microsoft Office patents).

Microsoft sued Corel in December 2015, asserting infringement of nine patents — 5 utility patents and four design patents. By the time the case was submitted to the jury on Friday, February 9, 2018, only six patents remained in the case…two utility patents and four design patents.

Microsoft argued that Corel willfully infringed those patents. The asserted Microsoft patents are directed to graphic user interfaces used in Microsoft products, such as Microsoft Office. Microsoft asserted that it has given its interfaces, including menus and toolbars, a distinctive look and feel, which Corel copied into the accused products, including WordPerfect X7. WordPerfect X7 even includes an option to use the product in the “Microsoft Word mode.” See Complaint para 3-5. Similarly, Quatro Pro X7 offers the option to use the product in the “Microsoft Excel mode.” See Complaint para. 6-8.

In the jury verdict form returned, the jury unanimously agreed that Corel had willfully infringed those patents. (more…)

Federal Circuit finds no problem with district court re-submitting case to jury

On January 19, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Med. The appeal centered on the jury verdict form and how the jury specifically handled its duties in relation to that jury form.

The jury form included what is known as a “stop instruction,” which told the jury not to consider any of the invalidity defenses unless they first determined that the defendant was liable for infringement.  Globus, the defendant, did not object to the instruction prior to jury deliberations.

Upon reviewing the verdict form after deliberations ended, the district court determined that the jury had not followed the instructions and had filled out the verdict form incorrectly. The jury found no infringement, but did not stop there, and instead moved on to consider invalidity and damages. The jury form indicated that the jury found the claims invalid, and no damages should be awarded.

(more…)

Judge finds Allergan patents invalid in Eastern District of Texas and opines on sovereign immunity issue

Recently, in a 135-page opinion, Judge William C. Bryson (left), sitting by designation as a trial judge for the United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, found that Allergan’s RESTASIS patents were infringed by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, but that Teva had demonstrated invalidity of those RESTASIS patents by clear and convincing evidence.

“We are disappointed by the Federal District Court’s decision on the RESTASIS^® patents. We are carefully reviewing the decision and are considering all options,” said Robert D. Bailey, Chief Legal Officer for Allergan. “Allergan remains committed to vigorously defending the intellectual property of our products, which allows us to continue to invest in developing and bringing forward new medicines for millions of patients.”

The patents include United States Patent Nos. 8,629,111; 8,648,048; 8,685,930 and 9,248,191. These patents, along with United States Patent Nos. 8,633,162 and 8,642,556, are listed in the Orange Book for RESTASIS^® and expire on August 27, 2024.

(more…)

Infringers may soon pay a heavy price in China

Chinese President Xi Jinping recently made some unusually strong comments regarding intellectual property. “Wrongdoing should be punished more severely so that IP infringers will pay a heavy price,” Xi said.

According to IAM, the comments from President Xi are the most extensive he’s made in public on the subject of intellectual property protection. He called on national authorities to advance IP regulations, improve the quality and efficiency of examinations and to accelerate the building of IP institutions. The remarks are a major acknowledgement of the importance of strong IP protections to a nation’s economy, directly from the head of state of one of the world’s major economies.

Political leaders in Washington, DC should take notice of Xi’s comments. In China, where there is single-party rule, change can happen dramatically, as we have already seen on the patent and innovation landscape. With the support of President Xi, China could very quickly move to become the preferred jurisdiction for innovators, given the market size afforded by a country with 1.4 billion people. If acted upon in a serious way, this new Chinese approach to dealing with infringers could send a shockwave through the entire intellectual property community, if not the entire world economy.

“President Xi’s statement on the importance of IP enforcement indicates China’s growing status as a leader in innovation,” said Erick Robinson, a U.S. patent attorney based in Beijing. He is Director of Patent Litigation at Beijing East IP. “China knows that only by protecting patent rights will individuals and companies have incentive to create new technical solutions.”

At a time when President Xi is actively moving China’s IP policy to a place where infringers are met with harsher penalties, some Congressional leaders support legislation that continue attempts to further gut the U.S. patent system, allowing infringers a free holiday and the ability to infringe without consequence or penalty.  In recent days, the House IP subcommittee has piled on, looking for ways to further reduce venue for plaintiffs in infringement suits and turning into a forum for attacking judges on patent cases and the critics of patent reform.

While factions within the U.S. seriously discuss further dismantling the U.S. patent system in favor of infringers, China takes the lead in increasing the enforceability of patents.

Supreme Court reverses 25 years of Federal Circuit patent venue law

On May 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC. In a unanimous decision of the Court delivered by Justice Thomas (minus Justice Gorsuch who did not participate in consideration of the case), the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and ruled that 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) is the only applicable venue statute in patent infringement cases, and that 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) did not modify or amend 1400(b) or the Court’s 1957 ruling in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.

Pursuant to § 1400(b), a “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.” Under § 1391(c), a corporation is deemed to be a resident of “any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction….”

In Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), the Supreme Court held that § 1400(b) is not to be supplemented by § 1391(c) and that “§ 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions….” While that might seem to have ended the inquiry on its face, the Federal Circuit in 1990 decided VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F. 2d 1574 (1990), which announced its view that the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988 made 1391(c) applicable to patent infringement actions.

(more…)