Access to artificial intelligence, big data, FinTech, eHealth, and digital connectivity are increasingly providing individuals around the world with access to vital resources such as employment opportunities, online banking and healthcare, according to…Continue Reading ...
LinkedIn was a rapidly growing company with only 22 patents in its portfolio in 2012, putting itself at high risk for patent assertion. With a revenue reaching nearly $1 billion and a growth of 86%, LinkedIn knew it had to develop a patent strategy to reduce its risk profile. So what was LinkedIn’s patent strategy and how did it increase its patent filings? Let’s start at the beginning… The opportunities for risk mitigation can be divided into two categories: increasing organic filings to…
Continue Reading ...
The main winners of innovation are technologies that enable market application, with gene editing and artificial intelligence as two examples, Francis Gurry, director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization, told a panel discussion last week. Thomas Cueni, director general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), said at the same event that everybody benefits from innovation.Continue Reading ...
Access to affordable and quality medicines for all is one of the major commitments of the World Health Organization, and its new medicines and health products strategic framework for the next 15 years calls for new research and development (R&D) models, including delinkage of the R&D costs from the price of products, and fair pricing.Continue Reading ...
Employers should think twice before including the unenforceable provisions in employment contracts merely for their deterrent effect. Such a practice is risky. If an employer terminates an employee who refuses to sign an agreement that contains an unen…Continue Reading ...
The Federal Circuit decision proves that there really is no end to the nightmare that patent owners face in trying to uphold the validity of their property right, which is supposedly protected by the U.S. Constitution. In a decision in Google Inc. v. I…Continue Reading ...
The UK has become the ninth state to deposit the document required to apply the Protocol on Provisional Application (PPA), which is an essential step towards formation of the UPC. Four more deposits, including that of Germany, are required for the PPA …Continue Reading ...
By John Cravero — About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Celltrion, Inc. v Genentech, Inc. PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01121; filed March 21, 2017. Patent at Issue: U.S. P…Continue Reading ...
The oral argument of the day comes from INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC v. ERICSSON INC., No. 2016-1803 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2017). This case is primarily an obviousness case. Interestingly, near the end of the decision, Judge Lourie writing for the court added the following footnote:Continue Reading ...
The Board also instituted review of claims 1 and 2 […]
The Campaign for Accountability (CA) has released a report on Google’s “influence” on academic papers. Notably, The Chronicle for Higher Education states that “The Campaign for Accountability” is funded by Google’s competitors. The Wal…Continue Reading ...
From ContentGuard v. Google [ Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:14-cv-00061-JRG, 2:16-cv-00176-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. ]
To be clear, there is no defense to infringement of “practicing the prior art”:
The “practicing the prior art defense typically refers
to the situation where an accused infringer compares the
accused infringing behavior to the prior art in an attempt
to prove that its conduct is . . . noninfringing . . . because
the accused conduct is simply practicing the prior art.”
Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 658 F.3d 1330, 1337
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We
have made it “unequivocally clear . . . that there is no
practicing the prior art defense to literal infringement.”
Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res.,
Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Therefore, parties are prohibited
from arguing that a plaintiff “must prove . . . that . . . the
accused devices embody all the limitations in the asserted
claims, and in addition, [that the] accused devices must
not be an adoption of the combined teachings of the prior
art.” Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Spectramed, Inc., 49 F.3d
1575, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
As an initial matter, ContentGuard concedes that it
did not object on the grounds that Google raised an improper
practicing the prior art defense before the District
Court. Oral Arg. at 6:28–57, http://oralarguments.cafc.
ContentGuard objected on the grounds of prosecution
disclaimer. See J.A. 10704–07. Because ContentGuard
failed to identify the proper grounds for its objection
below, ContentGuard failed to preserve its claim of error.
See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a) (“A party may claim error in a
ruling to . . . exclude evidence only if . . . (1) . . . a party, on
the record . . . (B) states the specific ground, unless it was
apparent from the context . . . .” (emphasis added)).
Therefore, these arguments are waived. See Singleton v.
Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976) (“It is the general
rule . . . that a federal appellate court does not consider an
issue not passed upon below.”).2
footnote 2 relates to undeveloped arguments:
Although ContentGuard fashions its arguments to
this court as objections to “practicing the prior
art/prosecution disclaimer,” see, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 38,
41, 43 (internal quotation marks omitted), ContentGuard
provides only bare assertions of prosecution disclaimer
that we will not review, see SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.
Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (declining
to consider undeveloped arguments).
***Separately, in ContentGuard v. Apple:
ContentGuard appeals the District Court’s construction
of the usage right limitation and denial of its Motion
for a New Trial. Apple conditionally cross-appeals the
District Court’s denial of its Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings Declaring the Patents-in-Suit Patent-Ineligible,
Final Judgment that the Asserted Claims are not invalid,
and the denial of its Motions for JMOL and for a New
Trial. We affirm.
ContentGuard argues that a new trial is warranted
for two reasons. First, ContentGuard argues that the
“[t]he District Court’s construction [of the] usage
right[ limitation] was error because it is inconsistent with
the claims, the specification, the prosecution history, and
the commercial embodiment ContentGuard built.” Appellant’s
Br. 30; see id. at 30–47.4 Second, ContentGuard
contends that the District Court committed “evidentiary
error.” Id. at 48; see id. at 48–51. After articulating the
applicable standards of review, we address these arguments
Of evidentiary error:
Continue Reading ...
Although ContentGuard describes
examples of Apple’s purported “gamesmanship,” id. at 51,
ContentGuard fails to identify any erroneous evidentiary
rulings by the District Court that “had a substantial effect
on the outcome of the trial” sufficient to constitute an
abuse of discretion, Verizon Commc’ns, 761 F.3d at 430;
see generally Appellant’s Br., even after Apple identified
the deficiencies of ContentGuard’s contentions, see CrossAppellant’s
Br. 64 (stating that ContentGuard “fails to
identify any specific rulings to be overturned on appeal—
much less explain how they reflect an abuse of discretion”);
see generally Appellant’s Reply. A party’s failure to
make arguments under the operative legal framework
“typically warrants a finding of waiver.” Nan Ya Plastics
Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing, inter alia, Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171,
177 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (finding waiver when “counsel has
made no attempt to address the issue” because “[t]he
premise of our adversarial system is that appellate courts
do not sit as self-directed boards of legal inquiry and
research, but essentially as arbiters of legal questions
presented and argued by the parties before them”)).
Because ContentGuard failed to identify the District
Court rulings purportedly requiring reversal or to apply
the appropriate legal framework in its analysis, we decline
to address its arguments here.
These have both been covered by John Collins on the Kluwer Patent Blog (here and here), so I’ll be fairly brief. In the first decision, Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Generic Health Py Ltd  FCA 250, the Federal (trial) Court awarded Bayer Aus$…Continue Reading ...