A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


IP
Intellectual Property

Judge Andrews Construes "Comprising" as "Consisting Essentially of" Based On Disclaimer

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 9, 2020
Claim Construction

Pill Bottle
Sharon McCutcheon, Unsplash

Judge Andrews on Friday accepted a defendant's argument that, during prosecution, the applicant had so clearly and unambiguously disclaimed the prior art that it warranted construing "comprising" as used in a claim element to mean "consisting essentially of"—a major narrowing of claim scope.

The claim involved an oral tablet that delivered multiple drugs, with a "barrier layer" between them. The barrier layer claim element included the word "comprising":

a barrier layer comprising hydroxyl propyl methyl cellulose 2910, polyoxyethylene glycol 400, polysorbate 80, and titanium dioxide . . .

The portion after "comprising" in the claim element matches the composition of a commercially-available barrier layer called "Opadry ®White (YS-1-7003)."

The Court found disclaimer based on …

View

Federal Circuit Rejects Argument that Court, Not Jury, Must Determine Whether Patent is Standards Essential

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 4, 2020
Standards Essential Jury

In an appeal from a Judge Battalion case in the District of Delaware, the Federal Circuit today held that—unsurprisingly—a jury may answer the fact question of whether a patent is standards essential.

It held that the argument to the contrary, that the Court must determine whether a patent is standards-essential during claim construction, was based on a misreading of precedent.

View

Federal Circuit Reissues Illumina v. Ariosa, Rephrases "Bucket"-Based § 101 Analysis

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 3, 2020
Alice Step One Natural Phenomenon

Buckets
Carolyn V, Unsplash

The Federal Circuit today reissued its March 2020 opinion in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., which held a "method of preparation" claim relating to a natural phenomenon was patent eligible.

The reissue follows a petition for rehearing.

The patents involve a method for preparing a fetal DNA sample using a blood sample from a pregnant mother, by sorting the DNA fragments and removing the smaller ones using a size threshold.

The Original Bucket-Based Analysis

The Court originally described how it has consistently rejected "natural phenomenon"-related claims that fall into a "diagnostic" bucket, but has permitted method of treatment claims:

This is not a diagnostic case. And it is not a method of …
View

What Is a Computer?

Jeff Castellano, July 28, 2020
Means-Plus-Function Claim Construction

In both common usage and patent drafting, "computer" has become shorthand for an incredibly broad range of hardware and software, across almost every possible technological space. The breadth of meaning attributable to that single word can be a challenge for litigants and courts working through issues of claim construction or other issues (e.g., Section 101 motions, in which references to concrete computer components can lift a patent out of abstractness, and references to generic components can doom it). On the one hand, "computer" is readily understood by almost everyone in a general sense; on the other, standing alone, it has no specific meaning.

Judge Noreika recently addressed the question of whether a claimed "'computer . . . to computationally' obtain, change, or calculate specified aspects of the radiation beam arrangement or weights" should be construed as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA).

View

Court Splits As To Whether Recitation of Claim Elements Is Sufficient to State a Claim for Direct Infringement

Andrew E. Russell, July 27, 2020
MTD 12(b)(6)

A Crack
Crack on white concrete surface, Brina Blum, Unsplash

Two opinions in the past week have come to differing conclusions as to whether the recitation of claim elements in a complaint is sufficient to state a plausible allegation of infringement.

Recitation of Claim Elements Helpful

In the first, Dynamic Data Technologies, LLC v. Brightcove Inc., No. 19-1190-CFC (D. Del. July 20, 2020), the Court denied a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss an allegation of direct infringement, stating that it was sufficient to:

identif[y] products accused of infringing each of the asserted patents, identif[y] at least one claim of each asserted patent that the accused products infringe, and describe[] how those products infringe the identified claim.

To show …

View

Judge Fallon Rejects Expert Declaration, Recommends Grant of § 101 Motion at Pleading Stage

Andrew E. Russell, July 23, 2020
MTD Expert

Cell Tower
Cell Tower Ben Vaughn, Unsplash

In an R&R this week, Judge Fallon recommended granting a § 101 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

She rejected a proffered expert declaration regarding novelty of the invention, because "the court declines to consider matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss."

She noted that "[t]he law is now well-established that patent eligibility is a threshold issue." So far she has recommended granting three § 101 motions to dismiss this year, out of four that she has addressed.

The § 101 issues addressed here were not unusual. The patent, originally held by LG and now by NPE Aegis 11 S.A., sets forth an algorithm for using random numbers to authenticate mobile …

View

Appeal to Watch: Exclusion of Japanese Patent Office Publication as Not Publicly Accessible

Andrew E. Russell, July 17, 2020
§ 102 FRE

The reference at issue, JP 1992-136787

Japanese patent publications are typically considered to be fairly safe prior art references, as long as you prove up authenticity and offer sufficient evidence of publication.

But it turns out that that second part—showing publication—is kind of important.

In F'real Foods LLC v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., C.A. No. 16-41-CFC, Judge Connolly excluded a Japanese Patent Office Utility Model Publication on a motion in limine because the defendants failed to show that it was publicly accessible under § 102, based largely on defendants' own position in opposing IPR estoppel.

Couldn't Have Found Reference = No IPR Estoppel

The F'real defendants had previously filed an unsuccessful IPR, and plaintiff moved to exclude the reference based on IPR estoppel. …

View

§ 101 Denial Based on Representations in Complaint and Claimed Features

Andrew E. Russell, July 6, 2020
MTD § 101

In a brief § 101 opinion today, Judge Andrews denied a MTD based solely on Alice step 2. He relied primarily on allegations in the complaint that various claimed features of the invention were not routine or conventional:

Plaintiff . . . alleges in its amended complaint that the [asserted] claims incorporate “inventive concepts that were not well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time” of invention. . . . For example, the amended complaint alleges that some claims teach ways of displaying performance parameters so that users of both live and archived classes can compete with one another. . . . The amended complaint alleges that these functionalities were nonroutine and unconventional at the time of the invention and helped …
View

Judge Stark Dismisses ANDA Case For Reasons that Now Seem Obvious

Andrew E. Russell, June 29, 2020
Paragraph III ANDA

Judge Stark today dismissed an ANDA claim after the defendant converted their ANDA in such a way that it simply did not infringe, and plaintiff was left with no claim and no remedy.

What Is an ANDA? (The Short Short Version)

ANDA cases make up a fair portion of the Court's docket. If you're not already familiar, ANDA cases are brought by patent holders after a drug manufacturer files an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture a generic version of a drug.

As part of the ANDA, if there are unexpired patents listed with the FDA as covering the drug, the manufacturer may certify either that the patents are invalid, unenforceable, or won't be infringed (paragraph IV), or …

View

Judge Andrews Draws Clear Line on ANDA Inducement Claim

Andrew E. Russell, June 22, 2020
Inducement ANDA

Pill Bottle
Sharon McCutcheon, Unsplash

Judge Andrews today granted a rare Rule 12(c) motion in an ANDA action, entering judgment against the plaintiffs on their inducement claim based on the pleadings alone.

The method claim at issue requires administering a drug "from about 3 hours to about 1 hour" before a colonoscopy.

The accused product's label includes instructions to administer the drug "start[ing] approximately 5 hours prior to [a] colonoscopy," and then to "drink at least three 8-ounce cups . . . of clear liquids . . . at least 2 hours before" the procedure.

Judge Andrews held that those allegations—even if true—cannot show inducement of infringement, even if in practice some amount of infringement would occur. …

View
Newer
Older

Archive