• CAFC in ALVARADO HOSPITAL.  A dissent by Judge Newman.
    in: 未分類  | 

    CAFC in ALVARADO HOSPITAL. A dissent by Judge Newman.

    One must always keep in mind that the CAFC has jurisdiction in non-patent areas.
    On 22 August 2017:


    Because Prime Hospitals’ breach of contract claim is
    fundamentally a suit to enforce a contract and it does not
    arise under the Medicare Act, we hold that the Court of
    Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over that claim
    under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. We also hold
    that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction,
    however, over Prime Hospitals’ alternative claims
    seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s transfer order
    in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand for further proceedings.

    Judge Newman dissented:


    I respectfully dissent from the ruling that the Medicare
    Act’s jurisdictional assignment to the district courts
    does not apply when there is an offer of settlement of a
    Medicare reimbursement claim.

    (…)
    Nonetheless, my colleagues endorse the transfer of
    this action from the district court to the Court of Federal
    Claims under the Tucker Act, reasoning that the statutory
    assignment of Medicare jurisdiction does not apply
    when the issue includes a proposal for settlement of a
    Medicare claim. However, as precedent has resolved,
    settlement of a Medicare claim does not remove the
    statutory Medicare Act jurisdiction. See Pines Residential
    Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. United States, 444 F.3d 1379 (Fed.
    Cir. 2006)

  • Two CAFC judges in Nidec case:  we question whether the practice of expanding panels
    in: 未分類  | 

    Two CAFC judges in Nidec case: we question whether the practice of expanding panels

    The outcome was that appellant lost:


    Nidec Motor Corporation (“Nidec”) appeals a final
    written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The Board
    determined that claims 1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 19 of U.S.
    Patent No. 7,626,349 (the “’349 Patent”) are invalid as
    anticipated or obvious. We affirm.

    What the CAFC did not decide:


    Both Broad Ocean and the Director argue that the
    Board properly applied the joinder and time bar statutes
    to allow joinder and institution in this case. Nidec disagrees.
    We need not resolve this dispute. Nor need we
    address the Director’s and Broad Ocean’s arguments that
    the Board’s joinder determination is non-appealable in
    light of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)’s bar of judicial review for
    institution decisions or Nidec’s argument that the Board’s
    practice of expanding panels violates due process. For the
    reasons set forth below, we affirm the Board’s conclusion
    that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable as
    obvious over Bessler and Kocybik. Because there is no
    dispute that Broad Ocean timely filed the First Petition
    (containing the obviousness ground), the issues on appeal
    relating only to the Board’s joinder determination as to
    anticipation ultimately do not affect the outcome of this
    case. Both parties agree that, if we affirm as to obviousness,
    we need not address Nidec’s argument that various
    procedural aspects of the Board’s joinder decision require
    reversal of its holding concerning anticipation by Hideji.
    See Oral Arg. at 1:28–2:33 (June 8, 2017), available at
    http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20
    16-2321.mp3 (Nidec agreeing that we need not address
    the anticipation ground based on Hideji in any respect if
    we determine that the Board was correct in its obviousness
    determination under Bessler and Kocybik).

    Nidec loses:


    The Board concluded that “the use of
    sinewave commutation and independent Q and d axis
    currents would have provided predictable results to
    address known problems associated with other types of
    motors.” J.A. 29. Nidec asks us to reweigh the evidence
    the Board used to make its determination, which we may
    not do. See In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327,
    1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

    The opinion was per curiam. There was a two judge
    concurring opinion which included:


    Although we do not decide the issues here, we
    have serious questions as to the Board’s (and the Director’s)
    interpretation of the relevant statutes and current
    practices.

    (…)

    The issue in this case is whether the time bar provision
    allows a time-barred petitioner to add new issues,
    rather than simply belatedly joining a proceeding as a
    new party, to an otherwise timely proceeding. Section
    315(c) does not explicitly allow this practice. We think it
    unlikely that Congress intended that petitioners could
    employ the joinder provision to circumvent the time bar
    by adding time-barred issues to an otherwise timely
    proceeding, whether the petitioner seeking to add new
    issues is the same party that brought the timely proceeding,
    as in this case, or the petitioner is a new party.

    Of some interest as to the expanded panel:

    Nidec alleges that the two administrative judges added
    to the panel were chosen with some expectation that
    they would vote to set aside the earlier panel decision.
    The Director represents that the PTO “is not directing
    individual judges to decide cases in a certain way.” Director
    Br. 21 (quotation marks omitted). While we recognize
    the importance of achieving uniformity in PTO decisions,
    we question whether the practice of expanding panels
    where the PTO is dissatisfied with a panel’s earlier decision
    is the appropriate mechanism of achieving the desired
    uniformity. But, as with the joinder issue, we need
    not resolve this issue here. Nor need we address the
    predicate issue of appealability.

  • BlackBerry Settles Patent Dispute With Makes Of Slip-On Keyboard – The Consumerist


    The Consumerist
    BlackBerry Settles Patent Dispute With Makes Of Slip-On Keyboard
    The Consumerist
    nomore After another round of fighting over whether keyboard company Typo Products’ was infringing on BlackBerry’s patents, the two sides have decided to settle their dispute. Typo will still get to sell slip-on keyboards — as long as they’re of a
    BlackBerry Ltd, Typo Settle Keyboard Patent LawsuitBidness ETC
    BlackBerry settle patent infringement suit with TypoCTV News
    BlackBerry settles patent suit with Typo device for iPhonesCBC.ca
    Toronto Sun -Reuters
    all 193 news articles »
    Continue Reading ...
  • Edging towards the new regime for Europe: a report on the EPLIT Meeting

    PatLit is indebted to patent litigator Chris Ryan for his account of last week’s meeting of the European Patent Litigators Association (EPLIT) — this being its second annual meeting, which took place in the quietly efficient conference centre of the Hotel Jardins du Marais, Paris. Writes Chris:

    The Association has, on the latest review of an upward curve of interest, 168 members from 17 countries.   I didn’t count the delegates or conduct a statistical survey of the geographic mix but I estimate that there were 60-plus people there and I identified individuals from at least 9 different countries. 

    More effective reporters than this one would no doubt provide readers with a full summary of each presentation, including the progress reported by each of the Association’s Working Groups (Substantive Law, Qualifications, Costs, Privilege, Code of Conduct and Education/Training).  I will do no more than record, with source accreditation, the various “take home” points I picked up. 

    News 

    A positive tone to the meeting was encouraged by:

    • The recent dismissal by the CJEU of Spain’s challenge to the legality of the Unitary Patent Regulation;
    •  The failure of a similar challenge in the Belgian constitutional court;
    •  A statement by Margot Fröhlinger (Principal Director at the EPO) that the Italian government had decided that, subject to the approval of its parliament, it would now ratify the UPC Agreement; and
    •  The apparent intention of the EPO (again according to Margot Fröhlinger) to press ahead with a planned commencement date in 2016, without regard to the UK’s planned referendum on continued EU membership. 

    Patent Litigators Certificate 

    The next iteration of the Rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate will provide that non-profit organisations (i.e. not only universities) will be entitled to seek course accreditation.  This was a point of criticism of the last draft which was raised by CIPA’s Chris Mercer, in his capacity as Chair of the Working Group on Qualification, and subsequently clarified by Bernadette Makoski  from the German Ministry of Justice during her review of “Development towards a litigators certificate for European Patent Attorneys. 

    It is not just senior members of the UK Patent Attorney profession who worry that the “grandfathering” route to qualify to represent clients before the Unified Patent Court is currently unclear and potentially unfair – delegates from other countries (including Germany) are also concerned.  They received a sympathetic acknowledgement from Bernadette Makoski but, so far as I could detect, no unequivocal assurance that the final version of the rules will include them among those qualified to represent clients. 

    Bernadette did indicate that the approach likely to be adopted towards grandfathered qualification through previous course attendance is to be inclusive, in respect of qualifying courses (I think that means the list in the last draft will increase), but to give those wanting to make use of the provision a strictly enforced 12 months, and no more, to submit an application.  The right to represent clients enjoyed by those qualifying by this route will be permanent – the provision is not transitional in that sense. 

    The rules are expected to be finalised in the course of this summer (Bernadette again). 

    Renewal Fees 

    There was an awful lot of detail (from both Eugen Popp of Meissner Bolte and Margot Fröhlinger ) on the recently proposed level of Unitary Patent renewal fees and the complex financial modelling that lies behind the current proposal to align them with the renewal cost of a European Patent designating the four or five most popular national jurisdictions.  My strongest  recollection of the day was the weariness in the voice of Margot Fröhlinger when faced with the prospect of re-calibrated  financial modelling to reflect Italy’s  change of heart and consequent replacement of the Netherlands as the fourth most popular country for European Patent designation.  A final decision on this is expected within the (relatively wide) window of “end of June or in the fall”. 

    Value-based Court Fees 

    New to me (but maybe not others) was the explanation by Eugen Popp that if the UPC approach to valuing claims were to follow the approach that is well established in the German Courts, the pattern would be something like 

         * 80% based on an evaluation of the “cease and desist” element, taking account of:
    §  Remaining life of the patent in suit;
    §  Patent proprietor’s turnover, size and position in the market;
    §  Magnitude of harmfulness of the infringing activity;
    §  Potential loss resulting from the claim;
         * 20% based on the available financial remedies. 

    More understandable was the importance of Rules of Procedure requiring the exercise to be carried out by the court early in the process and well before either side could seek to influence the conduct of the valuation exercise on the basis of the way the court seemed to be going. 

    Recoverable Costs 

    While those used to high costs recovery (UK and Germany) were fairly relaxed about the recent proposals, others found the upper range alarming both in terms of the level and the adviser’s difficulty in evaluating a client’s cost risk within the €3M top-level cap.
    Two minutes from me on the true horror of the detailed cost assessment procedures for courts in England and Wales did nothing to allay anyone’s fears about the court’s ability to come to the assistance of a client who has lost a high value claim. 

    Is it ironic that, as English procedures move to address the concerns of clients about costs risk that are both large and difficult to assess in advance (at least in the IPEC regime), the UPC recoverable cost proposals seem to be edging in the opposite direction. 

     Training for Technically Qualified Judges 

    Xavier Seuba from CEIPI at the Université de Strasbourg demonstrated that, in developing the soon-to-be-launched course for technical judges, a very careful analysis had been undertaken of the challenge of testing technical/scientific data in litigation and the precise nature of the role of a technical judge, as distinct from that of a court appointed expert (or others likely to have an impact on this aspect of patent trials).  Not surprisingly, against that background, the course outline Xavier disclosed was impressive and the support for the course by both judges (as tutors) and potential trainees reportedly at a high level. 

    Rules of Procedure 

    18th draft expected during or after the summer (another fairly wide window) – this again from Margot Fröhlinger. 

     And finally… 

    … after all the legal, procedural and political debate came a breath of fresh air when Max Brunner, from the French Ministry of Justice, gave a fascinating presentation on the project planning for the establishment of the Central Division in France.   He included the chilling opinion that, based on long experience of managing projects, this was the most difficult one he had faced.  The difficulties were in part due to the disbursed nature of the decision-making and, more particularly, the uncertainties – “project management without any reliable kick off date” he called it.  And without any idea of how many cases would arise – how many filings and how many opt outs: what would the “litigation rate” be:  and how many cases would end up in the local court or the central division in Paris. 

    Against the background of those difficulties M Brunner presented a hugely impressive (to this project non-manager) of the steps being taken in respect of premises, facilities, support staff planning and IT development.  There was a passing suggestion on this last topic that the Paris team may not have been totally convinced by some of the security and user authentication features of the system presented by the UK IPO team during a recent workshop exercise. 

    The conference ended with a discussion by a panel of industry representatives.  But, bearing in mind the circumstances in which the late Ruth Rendell lost her first job as a reporter on a local paper, I won’t include anything arising out of it in this report.

    Thanks so much, Chris, for this detailed and helpful report!

    Continue Reading ...
  • BlackBerry settles patent dispute with Seacrest’s company Typo – Reuters


    Reuters
    BlackBerry settles patent dispute with Seacrest’s company Typo
    Reuters
    In February, a U.S. district court sanctioned Typo, co-founded by “American Idol” host Seacrest, for violating an injunction that barred it from selling a $99 iPhone keyboard case that BlackBerry said infringed its patents. Physical keyboards have
    BlackBerry Ltd, Typo Settle Keyboard Patent LawsuitBidness ETC
    BlackBerry Settles Patent Dispute With Makes Of Slip-On KeyboardThe Consumerist
    BlackBerry settles patent dispute with Ryan Seacrest’s TypoToronto Sun
    CBC.ca -Financial Post
    all 77 news articles »
    Continue Reading ...
  • Biocept Granted US Patent for Blood Collection and Transport Tube – MarketWatch

    Biocept Granted US Patent for Blood Collection and Transport Tube
    MarketWatch
    The granted patent covers Biocept’s blood collection preservative contained in the tube for collecting patient blood used for circulating tumor cell (CTC) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) genomic analysis at Biocept. The patented collection
    Biocept (BIOC) Announces Patent for Blood Collection and Transport TubeStreetInsider.com
    Biocept Inc.: Biocept Granted U.S. Patent for Blood Collection and Transport TubeThe Wall Street Transcript

    all 5 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...