Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.

Section 289 of the Patent Act makes it unlawful to manufacture or sell an “article of manufacture” to which a patented design or a colorable imitation thereof has been applied and makes an infringer liable to the patent holder “to the extent of his total profit.” 35 U. S. C. §289. As relevant here, a jury found that various smartphones manufactured by petitioners (collectively, Samsung) infringed design patents owned by respondent Apple Inc. that covered a rectangular front face with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen. Apple was awarded $399 million in damages—Samsung’s entire profit from the sale of its infringing smartphones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages award, rejecting Samsung’s argument that damages should be limited because the relevant articles of manufacture were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone. The court reasoned that such a limit was not required because the components of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately to ordinary consumers and thus were not distinct articles of manufacture.

Held: In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a §289 damages award need not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product. Pp. 4–9.

(a) The statutory text resolves the issue here. An “article of manufacture,” which is simply a thing made by hand or machine, encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product. This reading is consistent with §171(a) of the Patent Act, which makes certain “design[s] for an article of manufacture” eligible for design patent protection, and which has been understood by the Patent Office and the courts to permit a design patent that extends to only a component of a multicomponent product, see, e.g., Ex parte Adams, 84 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 311; Application of Zahn, 617 F. 2d 261, 268 (CCPA). This reading is also consistent with the Court’s reading of the term “manufacture” in §101, which makes “any new and useful . . . manufacture” eligible for utility patent protection. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303 . Pp. 4–7.

(b) Because the term “article of manufacture” is broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not, the Federal Circuit’s narrower reading cannot be squared with §289’s text. Absent adequate briefing by the parties, this Court declines to resolve whether the relevant article of manufacture for each design patent at issue here is the smartphone or a particular smartphone component. Doing so is not necessary to resolve the question presented, and the Federal Circuit may address any remaining issues on remand. Pp. 7–8.

786 F. 3d 983, reversed and remanded.

Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Download Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee

Held:

1. Section 314(d) bars Cuozzo’s challenge to the Patent Office’s decision to institute inter partes review. Pp. 7–12.

(a) The text of §314(d) expressly states that the Patent Office’s determinations whether to institute inter partes review “shall be final and nonappealable.” Moreover, construing §314(d) to permit judicial review of the Patent Office’s preliminary decision to institute inter partes review undercuts the important congressional objective of giving the agency significant power to revisit and revise earlier patent grants. Past practice in respect to related proceedings, including the predecessor to inter partes review, also supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend for courts to review these initial determinations. Finally, reading §314(d) as limited to interlocutory appeals would render the provision largely superfluous in light of the Administrative Procedure Act. Pp. 7–9.

(b) The “strong presumption” favoring judicial review, Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 575 U. S. ___, ___, is overcome here by these “ ‘clear and convincing’ ” indications that Congress intended to bar review, Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349. Given that presumption, however, the interpretation adopted here applies to cases in which the challenge is to the Patent Office’s determination “to initiate an inter partes review under this section,” or where the challenge consists of questions closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to that determination. Cuozzo’s claim does not implicate a constitutional question, nor does it present other questions of interpretation that reach well beyond “this section” in terms of scope and impact. Rather, Cuozzo’s allegation that Garmin’s petition did not plead “with particularity” the challenge to claims 10 and 14 as required by §312 is little more than a challenge to the Patent Office’s conclusion under §314(a) that the “information presented in the petition” warranted review. Pp. 9–12.

2. The Patent Office regulation requiring the Board to apply the broadest reasonable construction standard to interpret patent claims is a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority granted to the Patent Office by statute. Pp. 12–20.

(a) Where a statute leaves a gap or is ambiguous, this Court typically interprets a congressional grant of rulemaking authority as giving the agency leeway to enact rules that are reasonable in light of the text, nature, and purpose of the statute. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 229; Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842–843. Here, the statute grants the Patent Office the authority to issue regulations “governing inter partes review,” and no statutory provision unambiguously mandates a particular claim construction standard. The Patent Office’s rulemaking authority is not limited to procedural regulations. Analogies to interpretations of other congressional grants of rulemaking authority in other statutes, which themselves do not unambiguously contain a limitation to procedural rules, cannot magically render unambiguous the different language in the different statutory grant of rulemaking authority at issue. The nature and purpose of inter partes review does not unambiguously require the Patent Office to apply one particular claim construction standard. Cuozzo’s contention that the purpose of inter partes review—to establish trial-like procedures for reviewing previously issued patents—supports the application of the ordinary meaning standard ignores the fact that in other significant respects, inter partes review is less like a judicial proceeding and more like a specialized agency proceeding. This indicates that Congress designed a hybrid proceeding. The purpose of inter partes review is not only to resolve patent-related disputes among parties, but also to protect the public’s “paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies . . . are kept within their legitimate scope.” Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U. S. 806, 816. Neither the statute’s language, nor its purpose, nor its legislative history suggests that Congress decided what standard should apply in inter partes review. Pp. 12–17.

(b) The regulation is a reasonable exercise of the Patent Office’s rulemaking authority. The broadest reasonable construction standard helps ensure precision in drafting claims and prevents a patent from tying up too much knowledge, which, in turn, helps members of the public draw useful information from the disclosed invention and understand the lawful limits of the claim. The Patent Office has used this standard for more than 100 years and has applied it in proceedings which, as here, resemble district court litigation. Cuozzo’s two arguments in response are unavailing. Applying the broadest reasonable construction standard in inter partes review is not, as Cuozzo suggests, unfair to a patent holder, who may move to amend at least once in the review process, and who has had several opportunities to amend in the original application process. And though the application of one standard in inter partes review and another in district court proceedings may produce inconsistent outcomes, that structure is inherent to Congress’ regulatory design, and it is also consistent with past practice, as the patent system has long provided different tracks for the review and adjudication of patent claims. The Patent Office’s regulation is reasonable, and this Court does not decide whether a better alternative exists as a matter of policy. Pp. 17–20.

793 F. 3d 1268, affirmed.

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and III, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.

Download Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Held: 1. When deciding whether to award attorney’s fees under §505, a district court should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s position, while still taking into account all other circumstances relevant to granting fees. Pp. 3–11.

(a) Section 505 states that a district court “may . . . award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party.” Although the text “clearly connotes discretion” and eschews any “precise rule or formula,” Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U. S. 517, the Court has placed two restrictions on that authority: First, a court may not “award[ ] attorney’s fees as a matter of course,” id., at 533; and second, a court may not treat prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants differently, id., at 527. The Court also noted “several nonexclusive factors” for courts to consider, e.g., “frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness[,] and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence,” id., at 534, n. 19, and left open the possibility of providing further guidance in the future, id., at 534–535.

This Court agrees with both Kirtsaeng and Wiley that additional guidance respecting the application of §505 is proper so as to further channel district court discretion towards the purposes of the Copyright Act. In addressing other open-ended fee-shifting statutes, this Court has emphasized that “in a system of laws discretion is rarely without limits,” and it has “found” those limits by looking to “the large objectives of the relevant Act.” Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U. S. 754, 759. In accord with such precedents, this Court must determine what approach to fee awards under §505 best advances the well-settled objectives of the Copyright Act, which are to “enrich[ ] the general public through access to creative works” by striking a balance between encouraging and rewarding authors’ creations and enabling others to build on that work. Fogerty, 510 U. S., at 527, 526. Fee awards should thus encourage the types of lawsuits that advance those aims. Pp. 3–6.

(b) Wiley’s approach—to put substantial weight on the reasonableness of a losing party’s position—passes this test because it enhances the probability that creators and users (i.e., plaintiffs and defendants) will enjoy the substantive rights the Act provides. Parties with strong positions are encouraged to stand on their rights, given the likelihood that they will recover fees from the losing (i.e., unreasonable) party; those with weak ones are deterred by the likelihood of having to pay two sets of fees. By contrast, Kirtsaeng’s proposal—to give special consideration to whether a suit meaningfully clarified copyright law by resolving an important and close legal issue—would produce no sure benefits. Even accepting that litigation of close cases advances the public interest, fee-shifting will not necessarily, or even usually, encourage parties to litigate those cases to judgment. While fees increase the reward for a victory, they also enhance the penalty for a defeat—and the parties in hard cases cannot be confident if they will win or lose.

Wiley’s approach is also more administrable. A district court that has ruled on the merits of a copyright case can easily assess whether the losing party advanced an unreasonable position. By contrast, a judge may not know whether a newly decided issue will have broad legal significance. Pp. 6–10.

(c) Still, objective reasonableness can be only a substantial factor in assessing fee applications—not the controlling one. In deciding whether to fee-shift, district courts must take into account a range of considerations beyond the reasonableness of litigating positions. Pp. 10–11. 2. While the Second Circuit properly calls for district courts to give “substantial weight” to the reasonableness of a losing party’s litigating positions, its language at times suggests that a finding of reasonableness raises a presumption against granting fees, and that goes too far in cabining the district court’s analysis. Because the District Court thus may not have understood the full scope of its discretion, it should have the opportunity to reconsider Kirtsaeng’s fee application. On remand, the District Court should continue to give substantial weight to the reasonableness of Wiley’s position but also take into account all other relevant factors. Pp. 11–12.

605 Fed. Appx. 48, vacated and remanded.

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Download Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. v. PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC.

The Seagate test is not consistent with §284. Pp. 7–15.

(a) The pertinent language of §284 contains no explicit limit or condition on when enhanced damages are appropriate, and this Court has emphasized that the “word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U. S. 132, 136. At the same time, however, “[d]iscretion is not whim.” Id., at 139. Although there is “no precise rule or formula” for awarding damages under §284, a district court’s “discretion should be exercised in light of the considerations” underlying the grant of that discretion. Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U. S. ___, ___. Here, 180 years of enhanced damage awards under the Patent Act establish that they are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a sanction for egregious infringement behavior. Pp. 7–9.

(b) In many respects, the Seagate test rightly reflects this historic guidance. It is, however, “unduly rigid, and . . . impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to district courts.” Octane Fitness, 572 U. S., at ___. Pp. 9–13.

(1) By requiring an objective recklessness finding in every case, the Seagate test excludes from discretionary punishment many of the most culpable offenders, including the “wanton and malicious pirate” who intentionally infringes a patent—with no doubts about its validity or any notion of a defense—for no purpose other than to steal the patentee’s business. Seymour v. McCormick, 16 How. 480, 488. Under Seagate, a district court may not even consider enhanced damages for such a pirate, unless the court first determines that his infringement was “objectively” reckless. In the context of such deliberate wrongdoing, however, it is not clear why an independent showing of objective recklessness should be a prerequisite to enhanced damages. Octane Fitness arose in a different context but is instructive here. There, a two-part test for determining when a case was “exceptional”—and therefore eligible for an award of attorney’s fees—was rejected because a claim of “subjective bad faith” alone could “warrant a fee award.” 572 U. S., at ___. So too here: A patent infringer’s subjective willfulness, whether intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless. The Seagate test further errs by making dispositive the ability of the infringer to muster a reasonable defense at trial, even if he did not act on the basis of that defense or was even aware of it. Culpability, however, is generally measured against the actor’s knowledge at the time of the challenged conduct. In sum, §284 allows district courts to punish the full range of culpable behavior. In so doing, they should take into account the particular circumstances of each case and reserve punishment for egregious cases typified by willful misconduct. Pp. 9–11.

(2) Seagate’s requirement that recklessness be proved by clear and convincing evidence is also inconsistent with §284. Once again, Octane Fitness is instructive. There, a clear and convincing standard for awards of attorney’s fees was rejected because the statute at issue supplied no basis for imposing a heightened standard. Here, too, §284 “imposes no specific evidentiary burden, much less such a high one,” 572 U. S., at ___. And the fact that Congress erected a higher standard of proof elsewhere in the Patent Act, but not in §284, is telling. “[P]atent-infringement litigation has always been governed by a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Id., at ___. Enhanced damages are no exception. P. 12.

(3) Having eschewed any rigid formula for awarding enhanced damages under §284, this Court likewise rejects the Federal Circuit’s tripartite appellate review framework. In Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., 572 U. S. ___, the Court built on the Octane Fitness holding—which confirmed district court discretion to award attorney’s fees—and rejected a similar multipart standard of review in favor of abuse of discretion review. The same conclusion follows naturally from the holding here: Because §284 “commits the determination” whether enhanced damages are appropriate to the district court’s discretion, “that decision is to be reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.” Id., at ___. Nearly two centuries of enhanced damage awards have given substance to the notion that district courts’ discretion is limited, and the Federal Circuit should review their exercise of that discretion in light of longstanding considerations that have guided both Congress and the courts. Pp. 12–13.

(c) Respondents’ additional arguments are unpersuasive. They claim that Congress ratified the Seagate test when it reenacted §284 in 2011 without pertinent change, but the reenacted language unambiguously confirmed discretion in the district courts. Neither isolated snippets of legislative history nor a reference to willfulness in another recently enacted section reflects an endorsement of Seagate’s test. Respondents are also concerned that allowing district courts unlimited discretion to award enhanced damages could upset the balance between the protection of patent rights and the interest in technological innovation. That concern—while serious—cannot justify imposing an artificial construct such as the Seagate test on the limited discretion conferred under §284. Pp. 13–15.

No. 14–1513, 769 F. 3d 1371; No. 14–1520, 782 F. 3d 649, vacated and remanded.  

Download HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. v. PULSE ELECTRONICS,

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC

Respondent Marvel Entertainment’s corporate predecessor agreed to purchase petitioner Stephen Kimble’s patent for a Spider-Man toy in exchange for a lump sum plus a 3% royalty on future sales. The agreement set no end date for royalties. As the patent neared the end of its statutory 20-year term, Marvel discovered Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U. S. 29, in which this Court held that a patentee cannot continue to receive royalties for sales made after his patent expires. Marvel then sought a declaratory judgment in federal district court confirming that it could stop paying Kimble royalties. The district court granted relief, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Kimble now asks this Court to overrule Brulotte.

Held: Stare decisis requires this Court to adhere to Brulotte. Pp. 3–18.

(a) A patent typically expires 20 years from its application date. 35 U. S. C. §154(a)(2). At that point, the unrestricted right to make or use the article passes to the public. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U. S. 225, 230. This Court has carefully guarded the significance of that expiration date, declining to enforce laws and contracts that restrict free public access to formerly patented, as well as unpatentable, inventions. See, e.g., id., at 230–233; Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co., 326 U. S. 249, 255–256.

Brulotte applied that principle to a patent licensing agreement that provided for the payment of royalties accruing after the patent’s expiration. 379 U. S., at 30. The Court held that the post-patent royalty provision was “unlawful per se,” id., at 30, 32, because it continued “the patent monopoly beyond the [patent] period,” id., at 33, and, in so doing, conflicted with patent law’s policy of establishing a “postexpiration . . . public domain,” ibid.

The Brulotte rule may prevent some parties from entering into deals they desire, but parties can often find ways to achieve similar outcomes. For example, Brulotte leaves parties free to defer payments for pre-expiration use of a patent, tie royalties to non-patent rights, or make non-royalty-based business arrangements. Contending that such alternatives are not enough, Kimble asks this Court to abandon Brulotte’s bright-line rule in favor of a case-by-case approach based on antitrust law’s “rule of reason.” Pp. 3–7.

(b) The doctrine of stare decisis provides that today’s Court should stand by yesterday’s decisions. Application of that doctrine, though “not an inexorable command,” is the “preferred course.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828, 827. Overruling a case always requires “special justification”—over and above the belief “that the precedent was wrongly decided.” Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U. S. ___, ___. Where, as here, the precedent interprets a statute, stare decisis carries enhanced force, since critics are free to take their objections to Congress. See e.g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 172–173. Congress, moreover, has spurned multiple opportunities to reverse Brulotte, see Watson v. United States, 552 U. S. 74, 82–83, and has even rebuffed bills that would have replaced Brulotte’s per se rule with the standard Kimble urges. In addition, Brulotte implicates property and contract law, two contexts in which considerations favoring stare decisis are “at their acme,” Payne, 501 U. S., at 828, because parties are especially likely to rely on such precedents when ordering their affairs.

Given those good reasons for adhering to stare decisis in this case, this Court would need a very strong justification for overruling Brulotte. But traditional justifications for abandoning stare decisis do not help Kimble here. First, Brulotte’s doctrinal underpinnings have not eroded over time. The patent statute at issue in Brulotte is essentially unchanged. And the precedent on which the Brulotte Court primarily relied, like other decisions enforcing a patent’s cutoff date, remains good law. Indeed, Brulotte’s close relation to a whole web of precedents means that overruling it could threaten others. Second, nothing about Brulotte has proved unworkable. See Patterson, 491 U. S., at 173. To the contrary, the decision itself is simple to apply—particularly as compared to Kimble’s proposed alternative, which can produce high litigation costs and unpredictable results. Pp. 7–12.

(c) Neither of the justifications Kimble offers gives cause to overrule Brulotte. Pp. 12–18.

(1) Kimble first argues the Brulotte hinged on an economic error—i.e., an assumption that post-expiration royalties are always anticompetitive. This Court sees no error in Kimble’s economic analy-sis. But even assuming Kimble is right that Brulotte relied on an economic misjudgment, Congress is the right entity to fix it. The patent laws are not like the Sherman Act, which gives courts exceptional authority to shape the law and reconsider precedent based on better economic analysis. Moreover, Kimble’s argument is based not on evolving economic theory but rather on a claim that the Brulotte Court simply made the wrong call. That claim fails to clear stare decisis’s high bar. In any event, Brulotte did not even turn on the notion that post-patent royalties harm competition. Instead, the Brulotte Court simply applied the categorical principle that all patent-related benefits must end when the patent term expires. Kimble’s real complaint may go to the merits of that principle as a policy matter. But Congress, not this Court, gets to make patent policy. Pp. 12–16.

(2) Kimble also argues that Brulotte suppresses technological innovation and harms the national economy by preventing parties from reaching agreements to commercialize patents. This Court cannot tell whether that is true. Brulotte leaves parties free to enter alternative arrangements that may suffice to accomplish parties’ payment deferral and risk-spreading goals. And neither Kimble nor his amici offer any empirical evidence connecting Brulotte to decreased innovation. In any event, claims about a statutory precedent’s consequences for innovation are “more appropriately addressed to Congress.”

Halliburton, 573 U. S., at ___. Pp. 16–18. 727 F. 3d 856, affirmed.

Download Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

US Supreme Court Decision: COMMIL USA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

Held: A defendant’s belief regarding patent validity is not a defense to an induced infringement claim. Pp. 5–14.

(a) While this case centers on inducement liability, 35 U. S. C. §271(b), which attaches only if the defendant knew of the patent and that “the induced acts constitute patent infringement,” Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U. S. ___, ___, the discussion here also refers to direct infringement, §271(a), a strict-liability offense in which a defendant’s mental state is irrelevant, and contributory infringement, §271(c), which, like inducement liability, requires knowledge of the patent in suit and knowledge of patent infringement, Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U. S. 476, 488 (Aro II). Pp. 5–6.

(b) In Global-Tech, this Court held that “induced infringement . . . requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement,” 563 U. S., at ___, relying on the reasoning of Aro II, a contributory infringement case, because the mental state imposed in each instance is similar. Contrary to the claim of Commil and the Government as amicus, it was not only knowledge of the existence of respondent’s patent that led the Court to affirm the liability finding in Global-Tech, but also the fact that petitioner’s actions demonstrated that it knew it would be causing customers to infringe respondent’s patent. 563 U. S., at ___. Qualifying or limiting that holding could make a person, or entity, liable for induced or contributory infringement even though he did not know the acts were infringing. GlobalTech requires more, namely proof the defendant knew the acts were infringing. And that opinion was clear in rejecting any lesser mental state as the standard. Id., at ___. Pp. 6–9.

(c) Because induced infringement and validity are separate issues and have separate defenses under the Act, belief regarding validity cannot negate §271(b)’s scienter requirement of “actively induce[d] infringement,” i.e., the intent to “bring about the desired result” of infringement, 563 U. S., at ___. When infringement is the issue, the patent’s validity is not the question to be confronted. See Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc., 508 U. S. 83. Otherwise, the long held presumption that a patent is valid, §282(a), would be undermined, permitting circumvention of the high bar—the clear and convincing standard—that defendants must surmount to rebut the presumption. See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U. S. ___, ___–___. To be sure, if a patent is shown to be invalid, there is no patent to be infringed. But the orderly administration of the patent system requires courts to interpret and implement the statutory framework to determine the procedures and sequences that the parties must follow to prove the act of wrongful inducement and any related issues of patent validity.

There are practical reasons not to create a defense of belief in invalidity for induced infringement. Accused inducers who believe a patent is invalid have other, proper ways to obtain a ruling to that effect, including, e.g., seeking ex parte reexamination of the patent by the Patent and Trademark Office, something Cisco did here. Creating such a defense could also have negative consequences, including, e.g., rendering litigation more burdensome for all involved. Pp. 9–13.

(d) District courts have the authority and responsibility to ensure that frivolous cases—brought by companies using patents as a sword to go after defendants for money—are dissuaded, though no issue of frivolity has been raised here. Safeguards—including, e.g., sanctioning attorneys for bringing such suits, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 11— combined with the avenues that accused inducers have to obtain rulings on the validity of patents, militate in favor of maintaining the separation between infringement and validity expressed in the Patent Act. Pp. 13–14. 720 F. 3d 1361, vacated and remanded.

Download COMMIL USA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.

Held: So long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when the usages adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those before a district court, issue preclusion should apply. Pp. 8–22.

(a) An agency decision can ground issue preclusion. The Court’s cases establish that when Congress authorizes agencies to resolve disputes, “courts may take it as given that Congress has legislated with the expectation that [issue preclusion] will apply except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.” Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 108. Constitutional avoidance does not compel a different conclusion. Pp. 8–12.

(b) Neither the Lanham Act’s text nor its structure rebuts the “presumption” in favor of giving preclusive effect to TTAB decisions where the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met. Astoria, 501 U. S., at 108. This case is unlike Astoria. There, where exhausting the administrative process was a prerequisite to suit in court, giving preclusive effect to the agency’s determination in that very administrative process could have rendered the judicial suit “strictly pro forma.” Id., at 111. By contrast, registration involves a separate proceeding to decide separate rights. Pp. 12–14.

(c) There is no categorical reason why registration decisions can never meet the ordinary elements of issue preclusion. That many registrations will not satisfy those ordinary elements does not mean that none will. Pp. 15–22.

(1) Contrary to the Eighth Circuit’s conclusion, the same likelihood-of-confusion standard applies to both registration and infringement. The factors that the TTAB and the Eighth Circuit use to assess likelihood of confusion are not fundamentally different, and, more important, the operative language of each statute is essentially the same.

Hargis claims that the standards are different, noting that the registration provision asks whether the marks “resemble” each other, 15 U. S. C. §1052(d), while the infringement provision is directed towards the “use in commerce” of the marks, §1114(1). That the TTAB and a district court do not always consider the same usages, however, does not mean that the TTAB applies a different standard to the usages it does consider. If a mark owner uses its mark in materially the same ways as the usages included in its registration application, then the TTAB is deciding the same likelihood-of-confusion issue as a district court in infringement litigation. For a similar reason, the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that issue preclusion could not apply because the TTAB relied too heavily on “appearance and sound.” Pp. 15–19.

(2) The fact that the TTAB and district courts use different procedures suggests only that sometimes issue preclusion might be inappropriate, not that it always is. Here, there is no categorical “reason to doubt the quality, extensiveness, or fairness,” Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 164, n. 11, of the agency’s procedures. In large part they are exactly the same as in federal court. Also contrary to the Eighth Circuit’s conclusion, B&B, the party opposing registration, not Hargis, bore the burden of persuasion before the TTAB, just as it did in the infringement suit. Pp. 19–21.

(3) Hargis is also wrong that the stakes for registration are always too low for issue preclusion in later infringement litigation. When registration is opposed, there is good reason to think that both sides will take the matter seriously. Congress’ creation of an elaborate registration scheme, with many important rights attached and backed up by plenary review, confirms that registration decisions can be weighty enough to ground issue preclusion. Pp. 21–22.

716 F. 3d 1020, reversed and remanded.

Download B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

HANA FINANCIAL, INC. v. HANA BANK

Held: Whether two trademarks may be tacked for purposes of determining priority is a question for the jury. Pp. 3–8.

(a) Lower courts have held that two marks may be tacked when they are considered to be “legal equivalents,” i.e., they “create the same, continuing commercial impression.” Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp. 926 F. 2d 1156, 1159. And “commercial impression” “must be viewed through the eyes of a consumer.” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices, Ltd., 695 F. 3d 1247, 1253. When the relevant question is how an ordinary person or community would make an assessment, the jury is generally the decisionmaker that ought to provide the fact-intensive answer. See, e.g., United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 512. Pp. 3–5.

(b) Each of petitioner’s four arguments in support of its view that tacking is a question of law to be resolved by a judge is unpersuasive. First, it may be true that the “legal equivalents” test involves a legal standard, but such “ ‘mixed question[s] of law and fact,’ [have] typically been resolved by juries.” Gaudin, 515 U. S., at 512. And any concern that a jury may improperly apply the relevant legal standard can be remedied by crafting careful jury instructions. Second, petitioner offers no support for its claim that tacking determinations create new law in a unique way that requires those determinations to be reserved for judges. Third, petitioner worries that the predictability required for a functioning trademark system will be absent if tacking questions are assigned to juries, but offers no reason why trademark tacking should be treated differently from the tort, contract, and criminal justice systems, where juries answer often-dispositive factual questions or make dispositive applications of legal standards to facts. Finally, in arguing that judges have historically resolved tacking disputes, petitioner points to cases arising in the contexts of bench trials, summary judgment, and the like, in which it is undisputed that judges may resolve tacking disputes. Pp. 5–8.

735 F. 3d. 1158, affirmed.

Download HANA FINANCIAL, INC. v. HANA BANK

 

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

SCOTUS: TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL. v. SANDOZ, INC.

Held: When reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review. Pp. 4–16.

(a) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) states that a court of appeals “must not . . . set aside” a district court’s “[f]indings of fact” unless they are “clearly erroneous.” It sets out a “clear command,”Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, 574, and “does not make exceptions or . . . exclude certain categories of factual findings” from the court of appeals’ obligation, Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U. S. 273, 287. The Rule thus applies to both subsidiary and ultimate facts. Ibid. And the function of an appeals court reviewing the findings of a “ ‘district court sitting without a jury . . . is not to decide factual issues de novo.’” Anderson, supra, at 573. Even if exceptions to the Rule were permissible, there is no convincing ground for creating an exception here. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U. S. 370, neither created, nor argued for, such an exception. There, the Court held that the ultimate question of claim construction is for the judge, not the jury, id., at 372, but it did not thereby create an exception from the ordinary rule governing appellate review of factual matters. Instead, the Court pointed out that a judge, in construing a patent claim, is engaged in much the same task as the judge would be in construing other written instruments, such as deeds, contracts, or tariffs. Id., at 384, 386, 388, 389. Construction of written instruments often presents a “question solely of law,” at least when the words in those instruments are “used in their ordinary meaning.” Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co., 259 U. S. 285, 291. But if a written instrument uses “technical words or phrases not commonly understood,” id., at 292, those words may give rise to a factual dispute. If so, extrinsic evidence may help to “establish a usage of trade or locality.” Ibid. And in that circumstance, the “determination of the matter of fact” will “preced[e]” the “function of construction.” Ibid.

The Markman Court also recognized that courts will sometimes have to resolve subsidiary factual disputes in patent construction; Rule 52 requires appellate courts to review such disputes under the “clearly erroneous” standard. Application of this standard is further supported by precedent and by practical considerations. Clear error review is “particularly” important in patent cases because a district court judge who has presided over, and listened to, the entire proceeding has a comparatively greater opportunity to gain the necessary “familiarity with specific scientific problems and principles,” Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U. S. 605, 610, than an appeals court judge who must read a written transcript or perhaps just those portions referenced by the parties. Pp. 4–8.

(b) Arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Sandoz claims that separating “factual” from “legal” questions may be difficult and, like the Federal Circuit, posits that it is simpler for the appellate court to review the entirety of the district court’s claim construction de novo than to apply two separate standards. But courts of appeals have long been able to separate factual from legal matters, see, e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U. S. 938, 947–948, and the Federal Circuit’s efforts to treat factual findings and legal conclusions similarly have brought with them their own complexities. As for Sandoz’s argument that “clear error” review will bring about less uniformity, neither the Circuit nor Sandoz has shown that divergent claim construction stemming from divergent findings of fact on subsidiary matters should occur more than occasionally. Pp. 8–11.

(c) This leaves the question of how the clear error standard should be applied when reviewing subsidiary factfinding in patent claim construction. When the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent, the judge’s determination is solely a determination of law, and the court of appeals will review that construction de novo. However, where the district court needs to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period, and where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence. The district judge, after deciding the factual dispute, will then interpret the patent claim in light of the facts as he has found them. The ultimate construction of the claim is a legal conclusion that the appellate court can review de novo. But to overturn the judge’s resolution of an underlying factual dispute, the appellate court must find that the judge, in respect to those factual findings, has made a clear error. Pp. 11–14.

(d) Here, for example, the District Court made a factual finding, crediting Teva’s expert’s account, and thereby rejecting Sandoz’s expert’s contrary explanation, about how a skilled artisan would understand the way in which a curve created from chromatogram data reflects molecular weights. Based on that factual finding, the District Court reached the legal conclusion that figure 1 did not undermine Teva’s argument that molecular weight referred to the first method of calculating molecular weight. When the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision, it did not accept Teva’s expert’s explanation, and it failed to accept that explanation without finding that the District Court’s contrary determination was “clearly erroneous.” The Federal Circuit erred in failing to review this factual finding only for clear error. Teva asserts that there are two additional instances in which the Federal Circuit rejected the District Court’s factual findings without concluding that they were clearly erroneous; those matters are left for the Federal Circuit to consider on remand. Pp. 14– 16.

723 F. 3d 1363, vacated and remanded.

Download TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

AMERICAN BROADCASTING COS., INC., ET AL . v . AEREO, INC.

Held: Aereo performs petitioners’ works publicly within the meaning of the Transmit Clause. Pp. 4–18.

(a) Aereo “perform[s].” It does not merely supply equipment that allows others to do so. Pp. 4–10.

(1) One of Congress’ primary purposes in amending the Copyright Act in 1976 was to overturn this Court’s holdings that the activities of community antenna television (CATV) providers fell outside the Act’s scope. In Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U. S. 390, the Court determined that a CATV provider was more like a viewer than a broadcaster, because its system “no more than enhances the viewer’s capacity to receive the broadcaster’s signals [by] provid[ing] a well-located antenna with an efficient connection to the viewer’s television set.” Id., at 399. Therefore, the Court concluded, a CATV provider did not perform publicly. The Court reached the same determination in respect to a CATV provider that retransmitted signals from hundreds of miles away in Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U. S. 394. “The reception and rechanneling of [broadcast television signals] for simultaneous viewing is essentially a viewer function, irrespective of the distance between the broadcasting station and the ultimate viewer,” the Court said. Id., at 408. Pp. 4–7.

(2) In 1976, Congress amended the Copyright Act in large part to reject the Fortnightly and Teleprompter holdings. The Act now clarifies that to “perform” an audiovisual work means “to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.” §101. Thus, both the broadcaster and the viewer “perform,” because they both show a television program’s images and make audible the program’s sounds. Congress also enacted the Transmit Clause, which specifies that an entity performs when it “transmit[s] . . . a performance . . . to the public.” Ibid. The Clause makes clear that an entity that acts like a CATV system itself performs, even when it simply enhances viewers’ ability to receive broadcast television signals. Congress further created a complex licensing scheme that sets out the conditions, including the payment of compulsory fees, under which cable systems may retransmit broadcasts to the public. §111. Congress made all three of these changes to bring cable system activities within the Copyright Act’s scope. Pp. 7–8.

(3) Because Aereo’s activities are substantially similar to those of the CATV companies that Congress amended the Act to reach, Aereo is not simply an equipment provider. Aereo sells a service that allows subscribers to watch television programs, many of which are copyrighted, virtually as they are being broadcast. Aereo uses its own equipment, housed in a centralized warehouse, outside of its users’ homes. By means of its technology, Aereo’s system “receive[s] programs that have been released to the public and carr[ies] them by private channels to additional viewers.” Fortnightly, supra, at 400. This Court recognizes one particular difference between Aereo’s system and the cable systems at issue in Fortnightly and Teleprompter: The systems in those cases transmitted constantly, whereas Aereo’s system remains inert until a subscriber indicates that she wants to watch a program. In other cases involving different kinds of service or technology providers, a user’s involvement in the operation of the provider’s equipment and selection of the content transmitted may well bear on whether the provider performs within the meaning of the Act. But given Aereo’s overwhelming likeness to the cable companies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here. Pp. 8–10.

(b) Aereo also performs petitioners’ works “publicly.” Under the Clause, an entity performs a work publicly when it “transmit[s] . . . a performance . . . of the work . . . to the public.” §101. What performance, if any, does Aereo transmit? Petitioners say Aereo transmits a prior performance of their works, whereas Aereo says the performance it transmits is the new performance created by its act of transmitting. This Court assumes arguendo that Aereo is correct and thus assumes, for present purposes, that to transmit a performance of an audiovisual work means to communicate contemporaneously visible images and contemporaneously audible sounds of the work. Under the Court’s assumed definition, Aereo transmits a performance whenever its subscribers watch a program. What about the Clause’s further requirement that Aereo transmit a performance “to the public”? Aereo claims that because it transmits from user-specific copies, using individually-assigned antennas, and because each transmission is available to only one subscriber, it does not transmit a performance “to the public.” Viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems, which do perform publicly. Congress would as much have intended to protect a copyright holder from the unlicensed activities of Aereo as from those of cable companies. The text of the Clause effectuates Congress’ intent. Under the Clause, an entity may transmit a performance through multiple transmissions, where the performance is of the same work. Thus when an entity communicates the same contemporaneously perceptible images and sounds to multiple people, it “transmit[s] . . . a performance” to them, irrespective of the number of discrete communications it makes and irrespective of whether it transmits using a single copy of the work or, as Aereo does, using an individual personal copy for each viewer. Moreover, the subscribers to whom Aereo transmits constitute “the public” under the Act. This is because Aereo communicates the same contemporaneously perceptible images and sounds to a large number of people who are unrelated and unknown to each other. In addition, neither the record nor Aereo suggests that Aereo’s subscribers receive performances in their capacities as owners or possessors of the underlying works. This is relevant because when an entity performs to a set of people, whether they constitute “the public” often depends upon their relationship to the underlying work. Finally, the statute makes clear that the fact that Aereo’s subscribers may receive the same programs at different times and locations is of no consequence. Aereo transmits a performance of petitioners’ works “to the public.” Pp. 11– 15.

(c) Given the limited nature of this holding, the Court does not be- lieve its decision will discourage the emergence or use of different kinds of technologies. Pp. 15–17.

712 F. 3d 676, reversed and remanded. B REYER , J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which R OBERTS , C. J., and K ENNEDY , G INSBURG , S OTOMAYOR , and K AGAN , JJ., joined. S CALIA , J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which T HOMAS and A LITO , JJ., joined.

Download American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.