As a reminder, once a month we provide an update on activity in patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. (There we also highlight non-patent cases that attract amicus brief, but only once those cases have been scheduled for oral argument.) Today, with respect to these patent cases, we highlight one new opinion, briefing in five cases, and a recent oral argument.
Opinions
This past month the Federal Circuit issued one opinion in a patent case that attracted amicus briefs.
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Willowood, LLC
This appeal between Syngenta Crop Protection and Willowood attracted four amicus briefs addressing the issue of whether infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) requires an imported product “made by a process patented in the United States” to also be made by a single entity. In December, the court issued its opinion, holding that “imposing a single entity requirement on the performance of a patented process under § 271(g)” was improper.
New Briefing
New briefs have been filed in five patent cases we have previously highlighted.
Immunex Corporation v. Sandoz Inc.
Sine we last reported on this case, which concerns double-patenting and the obviousness requirements for biologic compositions, Sandoz has filed its reply brief. In it, Sandoz argues against Immunex’s claim that “any company can obtain multiple terms for obvious variants of the same invention by taking over patents by assignment.” With regard to the patents-in-suit, Sandoz contends that Immunex is “hid[ing] behind the district court’s findings, but cannot defend the court’s key legal error—relying on the claims themselves to show compliance with Section 112.”
Conversant Wireless Licensing v. Apple Inc.
This case concerns the enforceability of Conversant’s patent in light of Nokia’s alleged untimely disclosure of a related patent application to the ETSI standard setting body. The case attracted two amicus briefs, both in favor of Conversant’s position that Nokia gained no “extra benefit during the standards-setting process.”
Since we last reported on this case, Conversant has filed its reply brief. In it, Conversant argues that “Apple’s Brief fails entirely to explain how the district court’s finding that the evidence, at best, merely ‘suggests that, had Nokia disclosed its IPR, there was a reasonable possibility that the ‘151 patent would not have been incorporated into the GPRS standard’ meets the requisite legal thresholds on remand.”
Nevro Corp. v. Stimwave Technologies, Inc.
This case involves an amicus brief in favor of the request by Stimwave Technologies for denial of any injunctive relief due to the public interest. Since we last reported on this case, Stimwave has filed its reply brief. In it, Stimwave argues that “[t]he district court’s injunction takes Stimwave’s high-frequency SCS products out of the hands of doctors and their patients and (in the words of amici) ‘will result in suboptimal care in a significant cohort of patients with chronic pain. As a result, the injunction entered by the district court is not in the public interest.'”
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.
Since we last reported on this case, which attracted an amicus brief in favor of neither party that focused on injunctive relief, 10X Genomics has filed its reply brief. In it, 10X Genomics argues that “[t]he injunction fails to account for the public’s interest in ongoing scientific research and should be vacated.”
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC
This case concerns the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ability to consider patent-eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in an inter partes review proceeding. The case attracted an amicus brief arguing that § 318 of the America Invents Act requires the Board to “issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added,” and that patentability includes eligibility.
Since we last reported on this case, Uniloc has filed its reply brief. Uniloc argues that “[t]he Board’s ‘patentability’ determination in § 318(a) has the same scope as the ‘Scope’ of the proceedings set forth in § 311(b), which is patentability on grounds raised under Section 102 or 103 only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.”
Argument Recap
Since our last report, the Federal Circuit has heard oral argument in one patent case that attracted amicus briefs.
Dragon Intellectual Property v. DISH Network LLC
On January 6, the Federal Circuit held oral argument in this case, where Dish Network presented three questions concerning the district court’s finding that it was not a prevailing party and therefore not entitled to attorneys’ fees. See the argument recap for a detailed break down of the oral argument, where we conclude that “it seems likely the panel will at least vacate if not reverse the judgment here.”