MVA Litigation

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Commil USA LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U. S. ____ ( 2015), rejecting the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ recognition of a defense to induced patent infringement claims based on the good-faith belief that a patent is invalid.  The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision had vacated Commil’s multi-million dollar award ($63.7 million in damages and $10.3 million in interest) against Cisco Systems, Inc. and required a third trial to consider Cisco’s good-faith defense to Commil’s induced infringement claims.  ...

The answer should be a resounding “no,” according to the United States and Commil USA, LLC, the recipient of a multi-million dollar jury award against Cisco Systems, Inc.  Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (No. 13-896), which probes whether one who induces infringement of another’s patent can avoid liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) of the Patent Act by claiming that they had a good-faith belief that the patent at issue was invalid.  Recall from our previous discussion, Commil won a jury verdict against Cisco for $74 million ...

Imagine that you are fighting to enforce your valid patents and after winning two jury verdicts you feel vindicated by the $74 million award you have been granted for the defendant’s role in inducing the infringement…then the appellate court says “try again,” because the defendant believed in good-faith that the patent was invalid.  Today you may get to wake up from this daydream, but this is the real-world scenario from which Commil USA LLC is seeking relief in the U.S. Supreme Court.  On December 5th, the High Court agreed to hear Commil’s appeal challenging the Federal ...

The House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet recently held hearings targeted at further exploring intellectual property laws and policy.  On July 24, the Subcommittee held another hearing in its series that is examining federal copyright laws, this time focusing on remedies for copyright infringement provided under Chapter 5 of Title 17.  This was a follow-up to a previous hearing that focused on the notice and take down provisions of Section 512.  Issues addressed in the July 24 hearing include the creation of a small claims ...

The House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade considered and approved the Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2014 (“TROL Act”) with a 13-6 vote.  The purpose of the TROL Act is to establish that certain bad faith communications made in connection with the assertion of a United States patent are considered unfair or deceptive acts or practices under section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)).  The Act was passed with minor amendment to the provision that establishes an affirmative defense that ...

The 2013 General Assembly convened its 2014 Regular Session on Wednesday, May 14, 2014 with the introduction of House Bill 1032 The Abusive Patent Assertions Act by primary sponsor Representative Tom Murry (Rep).  The Bill also is sponsored by Representatives Conrad, Lambeth, S. Martin, Pittman, Saine, and  Whitmire.  The Act recognizes that the assertion of bad‑faith patent infringement claims poses a threat to North Carolina companies via costly and time-consuming litigation that may impose pressure to settle meritless claims.  The practice also “undermine[s] North ...

In an April 25, 2014 article published in Bloomberg BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, MVA Intellectual Property Member Mark Wilson examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S.Ct. 843 (2014) in which the High Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and held that the burden of proof remains with the patentee even in declaratory judgment actions filed by licensees. You can read Wilson’s article here

On April 8, 2014, the U.S. House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held a hearing “Trolling for a Solution: Ending Abusive Patent Demand Letters.”  The purpose of the hearing was to discuss ways to balance the need to curb the increasing abuse of patent demand letters by “bad actors” with protecting the legitimate interest that entities with patent holdings have in using demand letters “to engage other companies in lawful and productive discussions around their businesses.”  The hearing background memo explains that the ...

In response to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions addressing utility patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office issued new guidance and training materials for patent examiners tasked with determining eligibility of machine, composition, manufacture and process claims "involving laws of nature,  natural phenomena, and natural products."  The USPTO published the guidance memorandum and training slides, requesting public comment and suggestions for future examiner training.

The USPTO explained that the new guidance ...

For nearly 150 years, it has been established that a patent holder (“patentee”) ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. ____ (Jan. 22, 2014) reversed the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ attempt to shift the burden of proof to a licensee seeking a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe the patentee’s patents.  The unanimous Supreme Court found little support for upsetting the balance of our “well-functioning patent system” or ...

            In our last post, we discussed proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recently published for comment by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee.  Two years ago, I sat on a similar advisory committee for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina with the mission to devise a set of local patent rules to enhance the Rules of Civil Procedure and guide parties through the unique aspects of patent litigation in our District.  Since 2001, Federal District Courts around the country have continued to establish local patent rules.  Local patent ...