Published on:

by

In a recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision, the Board denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) in Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc. (IPR2024-00966), highlighting the critical importance of consistent claim construction strategies in patent challenges.

The Core Dispute

The controversy centered on Cambridge Mobile’s approach to construing the claimed “component” terms in U.S. Patent No. 9,333,946 B2. The patent owner, Sfara, Inc., argued for denial based on Cambridge Mobile’s divergent claim construction positions between district court litigation and the IPR petition.

In district court proceedings, Cambridge Mobile advocated for means-plus-function construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), contending the terms were indefinite. However, in their IPR petition, they simply argued for “plain and ordinary meaning” without explaining this shift in position or providing an alternative means-plus-function construction.

Regulatory Framework

The dispute brought Rule 104(b)(3) into sharp focus. This regulation requires IPR petitions to explicitly state how challenged claims should be construed. For means-plus-function claims, petitioners must identify specific portions of the specification describing corresponding structure for claimed functions.

The significance of this requirement is underscored in the USPTO’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, which warns that petitioners who fail to address § 112(f) construction “risk failing to satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Continue reading

Published on:

by

A recent discovery dispute in the ongoing Boston Dynamics v. Ghost Robotics litigation provides an interesting look at how courts analyze attorney-client privilege in the context of legal memos shared with third parties. In an October 2024 order, Magistrate Judge Burke denied Boston Dynamics’ motion to compel additional discovery related to two legal memos that Ghost Robotics’ attorneys had prepared and shared with third parties.

The key issue was whether Ghost Robotics waived attorney-client privilege by sharing these memos. As the court explained, “The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and an attorney relating to the purpose of securing legal advice.” However, this protection isn’t absolute – “If a client voluntarily discloses privileged communications to a third party, the privilege is waived.”

Boston Dynamics argued that the memos contained privileged communications, but Ghost Robotics maintained that “the content of the memos was never protected by the attorney-client privilege, in part because the memos were created with the intent that they were to be immediately disclosed to third parties.”

Judge Burke’s analysis focused on a critical distinction: The court found that “the substance of the memos seems not all that different from the content of a letter or an e-mail that a party’s attorney might send to opposing counsel in a case like this, or of a statement that an attorney might make in a press release or a court filing.” While Ghost Robotics’ attorneys likely had confidential discussions about these issues, the memos themselves didn’t reveal privileged communications. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision, the particularity requirement emerged as a critical factor in determining whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR). The case, involving IKEA Supply AG’s challenge to Everlight Electronics’ LED patent, highlights how failing to meet this requirement can doom even technically meritorious patent challenges.

Understanding the Particularity Requirement

The particularity requirement, codified in 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), demands that IPR petitions identify “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenges to each claim are based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for challenge to each claim.” As the Federal Circuit emphasized in Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.'”

Why Particularity Matters

The requirement serves multiple purposes: it ensures efficient review, provides fair notice to patent owners, and prevents what some practitioners call “kitchen sink” petitions that overwhelm both the Board and respondents with numerous alternative theories. Continue reading

Published on:

by

The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied Petitioner’s Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd.’s petition for inter partes review (IPR) and accompanying motion for joinder in a case involving MHL Custom, Inc.’s Patent No. 9,359,044 B2.

The decision, issued on December 17, 2024, centers on Waydoo’s attempt to join an existing IPR challenge (IPR2024-00086) filed by Foil Boarding Company. The Board’s denial primarily stemmed from two key factors: Waydoo’s previous unsuccessful challenge to the patent’s validity in district court and the company’s unexplained three-and-a-half-year delay in seeking IPR review.

Importantly, Waydoo had already contested the ‘044 patent’s validity in a previous district court case using substantially similar grounds, including the same prior art references (Evolo Report and Woolley). In that case, a jury not only upheld the patent’s validity but also found that Waydoo had willfully infringed it.

The Board emphasized that Congress intended inter partes reviews to serve as alternatives to district court litigation, not additional venues for repeated challenges. The decision referenced the House Report on the America Invents Act, which explicitly warned against using IPR proceedings as “tools for harassment or a means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and administrative attacks.”

The Board found particular significance in Waydoo’s failure to explain why it waited more than three years after being served with the initial infringement complaint before filing its IPR petition. Under normal circumstances, petitioners must file IPR challenges within one year of being served with an infringement complaint, though this deadline can be waived for joinder requests. Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied Juniper Networks’ second petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims of Orckit Corporation’s US Patent 10,652,111, which covers deep packet inspection methods in software-defined networks. The decision, issued on December 11, 2024, was based on the Board’s discretionary powers under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

The Board’s denial relied heavily on the precedential General Plastic factors, which are non-exhaustive and guide decisions about multiple petitions against the same patent. In a detailed analysis of those factors, the Board found that Juniper’s second petition targeted essentially the same claims as its first petition, despite Juniper’s arguments to the contrary. The Board conducted a careful comparison of the challenged claims 32-54 with previously challenged claims 1-31, determining that they were either identical or had no material differences in scope.

Significantly, the Board found evidence that Juniper was aware of the prior art references (Lefebvre, Chua, and Rash) cited in its second petition long before filing its first petition. Patent Owner Orckit provided documentation showing Juniper’s knowledge of these references dating back to 2016-2020, contradicting Juniper’s unsupported assertion of recent discovery. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a noteworthy decision that sheds light on the interplay between patent disclaimers and post-grant reviews, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently denied institution of a challenge to an Intex Marketing patent while declining to enter adverse judgment against the patent owner.

On June 15, 2024, Bestway (USA), Inc. petitioned for post-grant review of all 24 claims in U.S. Patent No. 11,959,512 B2. In what proved to be a strategic maneuver, Intex Marketing responded by filing a statutory disclaimer of all challenged claims, effectively surrendering their rights to the patent. This move raised an important question for the Board: should they simply deny institution, or take the additional step of entering adverse judgment against Intex?  In its October 28, 2024 decision, the Board opted to take the former approach.

The distinction between these two outcomes carries significant implications for patent owners. An adverse judgment would trigger estoppel provisions preventing Intex from obtaining or enforcing patents with substantially similar claims. This became particularly relevant because the ‘512 patent belongs to a family that includes three other granted patents and pending continuation applications.

In deciding against adverse judgment, the Board emphasized several crucial factors. First, Intex had never asserted or threatened to assert the ‘512 patent against Bestway. While Bestway argued it had incurred “significant expense” preparing its petition in response to what it characterized as “harassing” cease-and-desist letters regarding related patents, the Board found this insufficient justification for adverse judgment. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a significant ruling that clarifies the standards for expert disqualification in patent litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has denied E. & J. Gallo Winery’s motion to disqualify Dr. Mark Greenspan, an expert witness for Vineyard Investigations. The December 2, 2024 order provides crucial guidance on the treatment of technical information in expert disqualification analyses and the interpretation of protective orders in patent cases.

Case Background

The underlying dispute involves Vineyard Investigations’ allegations that Gallo infringed patents related to variable rate drip irrigation systems. The controversy arose when Vineyard Investigations designated Dr. Greenspan, a former Gallo employee, as an expert witness. Dr. Greenspan had worked for Gallo between 1996 and 2005 as an irrigation specialist and Winegrowing Research and Development Manager.

Key Legal Framework

The court’s analysis centered on two potential grounds for disqualification, as articulated in the order:

“There are two relevant bases on which Defendant moves Dr. Greenspan be disqualified: (1) an exercise of a trial court’s inherent discretion and (2) pursuant to Section 2.6 of the protective order.”

The court emphasized that “disqualification is a drastic measure that courts should use reluctantly and rarely,” setting a high bar for excluding expert testimony.

Critical Holdings

Continue reading

by
Posted in: News
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In a recent high-stakes patent litigation case, a protective order, filed on November 22, 2022, was put in place to safeguard confidential information during the course of the legal proceedings.  The defendant asserted that the plaintiff’s legal team had struggled to adhere to the protective order’s strict guidelines.

The first alleged violation involved a trial transcript containing sealed proceedings, which was sent from an associate at the plaintiff’s law firm, Williams & Connolly, to an associate at Morrison & Foerster, who is representing the plaintiff in separate IPR proceedings. This disclosure took place on July 18, 2023.

The second incident revolves around the plaintiff’s closing slide no. 298, which contained the defendants’ confidential Yesafili formulation. An associate at Williams & Connolly sent this slide to the plaintiff’s in-house counsel and to outside counsel in Canada. From there, the slide was disseminated to other members of the plaintiff’s in-house counsel team and to various international law firms.

The third and perhaps most concerning alleged violation involves the defendants’ BLA and other confidential information. The plaintiff’s in-house counsel sent this sensitive data to the Liad Whatstein firm in Israel, which handles patent litigation. Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent discovery dispute in a patent infringement case, the district court denied the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce certain inventor emails that were withheld on the basis of the work product doctrine. The key issue was whether the plaintiff demonstrated that the emails, exchanged between the two inventors of the asserted patents from 2016-2018, were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The litigation ultimately commenced in February 2022.

The district court acknowledged that evidence pointed to by both sides benefitted their respective positions–the defendant highlighted facts suggesting the inventors’ work was not in anticipation of litigation, while the plaintiff provided contrary evidence. Ultimately, the district court found the plaintiff’s showing sufficient to meet its burden and justify the work product protection.

Key evidence cited by the district court included:

  1. An inventor’s testimony that he began investigating potential infringement in November 2015 with the assistance of outside counsel.
  2. The inventor provided information to outside counsel from 2016-2020 to assess possible infringement.
  3. Starting November 2015, the inventor implemented measures to preserve documents related to the patents and defendant.
  4. Testimony from the outside attorney that he had previously advised the plaintiff about potential litigation involving the patents at issue.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the ongoing patent infringement case between Acceleration Bay LLC and Activision Blizzard Inc., the district court recently issued an order resolving several important evidentiary disputes between the parties. This order provides guidance on the admissibility of various categories of evidence that will impact the damages case at the upcoming trial.

Here are the key takeaways:

Survey Evidence Allowed for Limited Purpose

The court permitted Acceleration Bay to use Activision’s own customer surveys for the limited purpose of showing that the allegedly infringing large multiplayer game modes in Call of Duty are of equal or greater importance to customers compared to the non-infringing small game modes. Nonetheless, the district court reiterated its exclusion of the plaintiff’s damages expert’s opinions apportioning royalties based primarily on this survey evidence, finding that while the surveys can demonstrate the significance of the accused modes, they cannot directly calculate the royalty damage amount.

Evidence of Foreign World of Warcraft Sales Permitted

The district court allowed Acceleration Bay to present evidence of Activision’s foreign sales revenues for the World of Warcraft game. The plaintiff’s theory is that the infringing U.S.-based server system supports foreign players in North and South America. The district court found that as long as Acceleration Bay provides evidence linking the foreign sales to the accused domestic server system, the foreign revenue numbers can be admitted, even if conditionally at first. Continue reading