Burden of persuasion in the post-MedImmune world
| September 27, 2012
Medtronic v. Boston Scientific Corporation, Guidant Corporation and Mirowski Family Ventures
September 18, 2012
Panel: Lourie, Linn, Prost. Opinion by Linn.
Summary
This decision discusses who carries the burden of persuasion in the post-MedImmune world. This question arises as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007). In MedImmune, the Supreme Court found declaratory judgment jurisdiction even though the declaratory judgment plaintiff-licensee continued to make royalty payments pursuant to a license. The Court reasoned that a licensee should not be forced to cease royalty payments and risk infringement liability before the licensee can challenge the extent of coverage of the license.
The district court entered judgment of non-infringement in favor of Medtronic and judgment of validity and enforceability in favor of Mirowski Family Ventures (MFV). MFV appeals the judgment of non-infringement and Medtronic cross appeals the district court’s claim construction. The CAFC vacates the district court ruling and remands.
Tags: burden of persuasion > claim construction > Declaratory judgment > license
Damage calculations based on entire market value rule is improper absent evidence that patented feature drives demand for entire multi-component product
| September 19, 2012
LaserDynamics, Inc., v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
August 30, 2012
Panel: Dyk, Clevenger and Reyna. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary
LaserDynamics, owner of a patent regarding optical disc drives, sued Quanta Computer Inc. and Quanta Storage Inc., etc. for patent infringement. In calculating damages, the entire market value rule is a narrow exception to the general rule under 35 U.S.C. § 284 adequate to compensate for the infringement. Only if showing that the patented feature drives the demand for an entire multi-component product, a patentee may be awarded damages as a percentage of revenues or profits of the entire product. The date of the hypothetical negotiation for the purpose of determining the reasonable royalty is the date that the infringement began, which is sometimes or often earlier than the date of the first notice of the infringer’s infringement. To prove or tend to prove a reasonable royalty, the evidence of the granted licenses and the royalties received by the patentee for the patent in suit are probative.
原告は光ディスクドライブに関する特許の所有者であり、光ディスクドライブメーカーと、そのドライブを組み込んだラップトップPC組立メーカーとを特許侵害で訴えた。争点の一つは、損害賠償の計算方法であるが、特許技術の部品を含む完成品の市場価格に基づく計算方法（entire market value rule）は、合理的なロイヤルティ（reasonable royalty）について定めた特許法284条の例外であるため、特許の特徴が複数部品からなる完成品全体に対する需要を引き起こしたということを証明しなければ、そのような計算方法を使用することはできない。換言すると、そのような立証ができた場合にのみ、特許権者はその完成品の売上もしくは利益に乗じた損害賠償を受けることができる。また、合理的なロイヤリティを決定するための判断基準となる日は、いわゆる仮想的交渉日(hypothetical negotiation date)に基づいて判断されるのであるが、それは、被告による侵害開始の日であって、被告が侵害を最初に知った日（たとえば警告日や訴状提出日）ではない。さらに、合理的なロイヤルティを証明するためには、問題特許に関して、特許権者が受け取ったロイヤルティなどが、証拠の一つとなる。
Tags: damages > entire market value > entire market value rule > license > licensee > reasonable royalty > royalty
Liability for Induced Infringement of a Method Claim No Longer Requires Proof of Direct Infringement
| September 14, 2012
Akamai Technologies, Inc. and MIT v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp.
August 31, 2012
Panel: Rader, Newman, Lourie, Bryson, O’Malley, Linn, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach (en banc)
Per curiam opinion, joined by Rader, Lourie, Bryson, Moore, Reyna, and Wallach. Dissent by Linn, joined by Dyk, Prost, and O’Malley. Dissent by Newman.
Summary
In a 6-5 en banc decision, the Federal Circuit rejected precedents and relaxed the standard of proof for finding induced infringement under 37 USC §271(b). Traditionally, induced infringement requires a two-pronged showing of (1) knowing inducement to infringe and (2) actual direct infringement of the patent. In fact, direct infringement had long been held as the sine qua non of indirect infringement liability. The court’s new standard, however, eliminates the direct infringement requirement. Now, in cases involving method claims, inducement liability follows if the accused infringer (1) had knowledge of the patent, (2) induced others’ performance of the steps of the method claims, and (3) the steps were actually performed. Liability also follows if the accused infringer performed some of the steps of the claims and then knowingly induced another to perform the remaining steps.
Tags: bifurcated infringement > contributory infringement > divided infringement > induced inf
Summary Judgment improperly granted in trade secret misappropriation case
| September 7, 2012
Raytheon Company v. Indigo Systems Corp. and FLIR Systems, Inc.
August 1, 2012
Panel: Linn, Dyk and O’Malley. Opinion by Linn.
Summary
Raytheon sues Indigo for misappropriation of trade secrets in selling an infrared imaging camera to a general contractor on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The district court grants Indigo’s motion for summary judgment that the statute of limitations (3 years) had lapsed. Former employees of Raytheon started up Indigo to produce infrared imaging cameras. The district court impermissibly drew inferences against the non-moving party (Raytheon) in granting the summary judgment motion. Further, the summary judgment motion should not have been granted because Texas and California law state that the discovery rule for the statute of limitations is a question of fact and not of law.
Tags: statute of limitations > trade secret > trade secret misappropriation
Federal Circuit Judges Spar over Post-FDA-Approval Application of Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor
| September 4, 2012
Momenta Pharma v. Amphastar Pharma
August 3, 2012
Panel: Rader, Dyk and Moore. Opinion by Moore.
Summary:
Momenta sued Amphastar for infringement of Momenta’s drug testing method. Amphastar argued that its use of Momenta’s patented method for testing Amphastar’s commercial batches is covered by the exception to infringement for activities related to FDA regulatory review under the “safe harbor” provision of section 271(e)(1). The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against Amphastar, holding that the “safe harbor” is limited to pre-FDA approval activities. The Federal Circuit vacates the injunction. Amphastar’s activities took place after FDA marketing approval of Amphastar’s product, but the plain language of the statutory “safe harbor” covers all uses of a patented invention that are “reasonably related” to submission of information under FDA regulatory review. Since Amphastar’s manufacturing batch testing was mandated by FDA for commercialization, and not “routine” information gathered “voluntarily,” Amphastar’s use of Momenta’s patented method is exempted by the “safe harbor.”
Tags: 271(e) > FDA > FDA regulatory review > hatch-waxman > infringement > safe harbor
