Will the Supreme Court ruling on venue really matter?
Almost two months ago, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC. In deciding to hear this patent venue case, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions. 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.”
This specific, if not somewhat archaic, issue has tremendous ramifications for the future of how patent litigation will be handled in America. Or so the conventional thinking goes. It is also believed that the Supreme Court resolution of the issue has great significance for patent reform. But Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has also said that, regardless of what the Supreme Court does, Congress will take up the issue of venue reform. What that reform will look like will depend greatly on how the Supreme Court resolves the venue question surrounding § 1400(b).
PTAB ineffective at eliminating low-quality patents
Those who engage in patent assertion activity are not per se bad actors, or patent trolls, simply because they choose to exercise the exclusive rights granted by the federal government. In fact, the FTC recently acknowledged the term “patent troll” isn’t helpful. “In the Commission’s view, a label like ‘patent troll’ is unhelpful because it invites pre-judgment about the societal impact of patent assertion activity without an understanding of the underlying business model that fuels such activity,” the report reads.
Of course, it is true that the number of patent infringement lawsuits are up significantly compared to the 1980s. It is also true, however, that the increase in patent infringement lawsuits that came after passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) was deemed desirable by Congress. Indeed, it seems that Congress specifically envisioned more patent infringement cases (i.e., a higher volume) because they made the conscious choice to make it difficult (if not impossible) for patent owners to sue large numbers of infringers in the same lawsuit. Thus, the spike in cases that came after 2011 was an intentional feature of the AIA. Even that being the case, quarter after quarter we see patent litigation declining. See here, here and here, for example.
04.29.17 | America Invents Act, Patent Issues, Patent Litigation, Patent Trolls | Gene Quinn
Laches no defense to patent infringement during statute of limitations
The United States Supreme Court recently issued its decision in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag et al. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the defense of laches remained a viable defense to patent infringement actions brought during the exceptionally long six-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court ruled that the defense of laches is inappropriate for claims brought within the statute of limitations, hardly a shocking ruling given that the Court reached the same ruling only several years ago with respect to laches as a defense in copyright infringement claims. See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014).
Unlike most patent decisions, the decision in SCA Hygiene Products was not unanimous. The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Alito, who was joined by the Chief Justice, as well as Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. A dissent was filed by Justice Breyer, who would have affirmed the Federal Circuit ruling finding that 35 U.S.C. 282 codified a laches defense without using the term “laches.” It was Justice Breyer’s belief that the codified defense of unenforceability allowed for a laches defense to patent infringement actions, explaining that in very old cases interpreting the common law, laches was at times equated to unenforceability.
04.26.17 | Patent Issues, Patent Litigation, posts, Supreme Court Cases | Gene Quinn
Sony sues Fujifilm on 3M-acquired patents
Sony Corporation recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Japanese photography and imaging company Fujifilm. At the center of Sony’s legal action are magnetic tape products marketed by Fujifilm which allegedly practice technology copied from Sony without a license.
In the official complaint filed by Sony, the company asserts a series of four patents, which it alleges Fujifilm infringed through the sale of the company’s Linear Tape-Open (LTO) format magnetic tapes, specifically generation four, five and six LTO tapes (LTO-4, LTO-5, LTO-6).
02.23.17 | patent infringement, Patent Issues, Patent Litigation | Gene Quinn
Jockeying for Position in a Sleep Apnea Patent Lawsuit
Several months ago, respiratory health device developer ResMed Inc. filed multiple legal actions against Fisher & Paykel Healthcare. ResMed is alleging that multiple Fisher & Paykel products infringe upon its patents. ResMed filed actions with the U.S. International Trade Commission(ITC) and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (S.D. Cal.), as well as courts in Germany and New Zealand.
ResMed argues that Fisher & Paykel is infringing upon patents it holds related to modular mask systems, headgear design, and cushion design for masks for sleep apnea patients. ResMed attempted to assert its rights on four particular patents in its portfolio.
01.24.17 | Patent Litigation | Gene Quinn
No Comments
05.24.17 | Patent Issues, Patent Litigation, Patent Trolls, Supreme Court Cases | Gene Quinn