The Ninth Circuit recently addressed an issue as to who may pursue claims for copyright infringement concerning stock photos in the case DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC, et al. (Sept. 12, 2017).  Apparently there has been a rise in copyright infringement claims involving stock photos and the Ninth Circuit was called upon to determine whether the non-exclusive licensing agent for stock photos had standing to pursue a claim for copyright infringement. 

The case involved a stock photography agency, DRK, which markets and licenses photos taken by others.  DRK has a collection of hundreds of thousands of “stock photos” and licensed a number of its photos to McGraw-Hill for use in its text books and other publications from 1992 to 2009.

DRK typically entered into a “Representation Agreement” with photographers to license their photos. One form of the representation agreement was for DRK to (1) act as the “sole and exclusive agent” to license the subject photos; and (2) another form of agreement that appointed DRK as a “non-exclusive agent” to license such photos.  Most of the agreements that DRK entered into with photographers were of the non-exclusive variety and these were the ones as issue in the Ninth Circuit’s case.

In 2008, DRK began to attempt to copyright the photographs in its collection.  To assist it with doing so, DRK had its photographers enter into “copyright assignment, registration and accrued causes of action agreements” (“Assignment Agreements”) that purported to assign all copyrights and legal title in the images to DRK for the purpose of completing the copyright registration of the photos and resolving any infringement claims brought by DRK, after any copyright interest in the photographs would revert back to the photographer.   DRK acknowledged that the purpose of these assignment agreements was to affect a transfer of any copyright interest to it so that it could pursue its copyright enforcement efforts.  In fact, DRK admitted that it had no intent to use these interests for any purpose other than pursuing copyright infringement actions.

After DRK sued McGraw-Hill in May 2001 asserting claims for copyright infringement, among others, McGraw-Hill moved for summary judgment as to some of these claims arguing that DRK lacked standing to pursue copyright infringement claims.  The District Court agreed with McGraw-Hill and granted it summary judgment, finding that DRK was not the legal or beneficial owner of the copyrights at interest and thus had no standing to sue.  DRK appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit began by recognizing that section 501(b) of the Copyright Act sets forth the requirements for standing to bring a lawsuit for copyright infringement:  “The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the [registration] requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it.”  DRK argued that it had standing to sue for copyright infringement with regard to the photos as either a legal or a beneficial owner of the subject copyrights. The Ninth Circuit examined each of these claims in turn and rejected both of them.

As to DRK’s claim that it had legal ownership in the photos’ copyrights, it recognized the well-settled rule that “a mere `non-exclusive license’ does not constitute a `transfer of copyright ownership’ and therefore cannot confer standing to assert an infringement claim.”  DRK claimed that it had legal ownership rights in the copyrights because of the Representation and Assignment Agreements.  First, DRK argued that the Ninth Circuit had previously held that a stock photograph agency had standing to bring copyright infringement claims in the case Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., that was decided in 2015. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument by concluding that DRK misread the extent of that case, given that what was at issue in the Minden case was an agreement that gave Minden “sole and exclusive” rights with respect to the licensing of the photographs.  The Ninth Circuit distinguished the Representation Agreement at issue in the DRK case by noting that they did not give DRK exclusive rights and lacked “any limitation whatsoever on the photographer’s authority to contract with other licensing agents.”  Thus, the non-exclusive license was insufficient to grant standing to DRK to pursue infringement claims.

DRK next argued that it became a legal owner of the copyrights by virtue of the Assignment Agreements. The Ninth Circuit likewise rejected this argument relying on its 2005 decision in Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, which held that the assignee of an accrued claim for copyright infringement could not maintain a copyright infringement claim if it had no legal or beneficial interest in the copyright itself.  The Ninth Circuit noted that all of the acts of infringement occurred prior to DRK’s entering into the Assignment Agreements and that even following the execution of the Assignment Agreements, the photographers retained the right to market and sell the covered photographers themselves and through other agents.  In essence, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Assignment Agreements merely conveyed a “right to sue” to DRK that failed to comply with the Copyright Act; and thus failed to confer standing to pursue infringement actions under the Copyright Act.

Next, DRK argued that it had standing to sue because it was the beneficial owner of the subject copyrights.  The Ninth Circuit recognized that it had not been called upon to fully explore the extent of who may qualify as a beneficial owner and declined to do so in the DRK case.  In essence, DRK was arguing that the Representation and Assignment Agreements, while maybe not making it the legal owner of the copyrights at issue, rendered it a beneficial owner.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that this was nothing but an “end run” around the Copyright Act ruling that “to hold that DRK is a beneficial owner simply on the very basis that it cannot be deemed the legal owner would effectively negate our holding in Silvers and render portions of section 501(b) superfluous.”

Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon concurred in the Court’s ruling solely on the basis that she recognized that Silvers remained good law in the Ninth Circuit and thus, compelled the conclusion reached by the Court.  She wrote in her concurrence, however, that she continued to believe that Silvers was wrongly decided and that the Court should be more pragmatic in determining who had standing to pursue claims for copyright infringement.  Judge Berzon found it significant that DRK is authorized to license photographs on behalf of the photographers and has a “substantial interest” in how the photos it licenses should be used.  This should be sufficient in her view to confer standing for DRK to pursue copyright infringement claims.

Attorneys representing companies that are involved in the stock photography industry may want to revisit any applicable licensing agreements regarding stock photos to determine whether or not their client will have standing to pursue copyright infringement claims concerning the photos in their catalogues.

 

James Kachmar is a shareholder in Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin’s litigation section.  He represents corporate and individual clients in both state and federal courts in various business litigation matters, including trade secret misappropriation, unfair business competition, stockholder disputes, and intellectual property disputes.  For additional articles on intellectual property issues, please visit Weintraub’s law blog at www.theiplawblog.com. 

The latest issue in the patent world is one no one would have expected – sovereign immunity.

How did this issue arise? Allergan, the company that makes the dry-eye drug Restasis, has employed an aggressive strategy in attempting to protect its $1.5 billion market by selling its Restasis patents to a Native American Tribe.  In September, Allergan sold the patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in New York.  Because the Tribe is a sovereign nation, it can claim sovereign immunity from suits in federal court under the 11th Amendment.  The validity of Allergan’s Restasis patents had been challenged by Mylan and several other generic drug manufacturers in the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.  (An IPR is like a mini trial, in which both the patent owner and the challenger participate).  Immediately after acquiring the patents, Saint Regis moved to dismiss the IPRs on the grounds that the Tribe has sovereign immunity.  The PTAB has yet ruled. 

Allergan brought this problem upon itself.  Allergan sued Mylan and several other generic drug manufacturers in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of its Restasis patents.  The trial judge in that case is a judge on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals who is sitting in the district court.

As is typical in patent infringement suits, the defendants filed IPRs in the PTAB, challenging the validity of Allergan’s patents.  The PTAB instituted the IPRs and began the process.  Final oral argument was set for September.  About one week before the hearing, Allergan announced that it had sold its Restasis patents to Saint Regis.  In that deal, Allergan sold six of its Restasis patents to Saint Regis and licensed them back.  Allergan obtained an  exclusive license for all FDA-approved uses, leaving Saint Regis with the rights to the patents for educational purposes.   After the deal was done, Saint Regis asserted sovereign immunity in the IPRs and sought to have the IPRs dismissed.

This move by Allergan triggered a firestorm from the generic drug manufacturer defendants, other drug companies, and Congress.  The defendants contended that Allergan’s deal with Saint Regis was a sham, and will harm consumers who need access to less expensive generic drugs that are of the same quality as the patented drugs.  In Congress, Senator Claire McCaskill has already introduced a bill to preclude Native American Tribes from asserting sovereign immunity in PTAB proceedings.  Senator McCaskill and other Senators have stated that Allergan’s tactic is anticompetitive and an attempt to improperly further the monopoly on its patents.

Meanwhile, in the district court, Allergan moved to add Saint Regis as a joint plaintiff, clearly trying to demonstrate that the deal is not a sham and that Saint Regis really is the patent owner.  In connection with this motion, Saint Regis agreed that it would waive its sovereign immunity for purposes of the litigation.  Not surprisingly, the defendants opposed Allergan’s motion.

Interestingly, the district court has now ruled, after holding a bench trial in early September, that four of Allergan’s patents are invalid as obvious.  In his decision, the judge was very concerned about Allergan’s deal with Saint Regis, stating that the deal was essentially an attempt to “rent” the sovereign immunity of a sovereign nation. The court said that sovereign immunity should not be a commodity that private companies could purchase to avoid proper challenges to their patents.

What will happen next?

  • How will the district court rule on Allergan’s motion to add Saint Regis as a joint plaintiff? The courts ruing will depend on how many rights Allergan transferred to Saint Regis.  If Allergan transferred substantial rights, the court could find that Saint Regis is the patent owner, and grant the motion.  However, based on the court’ statements in its decision on invalidity, it appears that the court may deny the motion. Either way, because the district court judge is a Federal Circuit judge, his decision could affect how the Federal Circuit will rule when the issue comes before it.
  • How will the PTAB rule on Saint Regis’ motion to dismiss the IPRs on the grounds of sovereign immunity?  Some experts believe that if the district court denies Allergan’s motion to add Saint Regis as a plaintiff in the litigation, the PTAB will conclude that Saint Regis is not really the patent owner and does not need to be a party to the IPRs, and will proceed with the IPRs despite Saint Regis’ claim of immunity.  Others think that the PTAB will decide that sovereign immunity does not apply in PTAB proceedings because these proceedings are not the same as federal court litigation.  Alternatively, it is possible that the PTAB will grant Saint Regis’ motion because in several prior cases, the PTAB has dismissed IPRs against state universities on sovereign immunity grounds.  However, even of the PTAB decides that sovereign immunity does apply, it might rule against Saint Regis if it determines that Saint Regis licensed all substantial rights back to Allergan.
  • How will the PTAB rule on the validity of Allergan’s patents in the IPRs? The PTAB will make its decision based on the legal standards that apply in IPRs, which are different from those that the district court applied in the litigation.  In addition to determining the validity of the patents that the district court invalidated, the PTAB will have to decide the validity of two patents that the district court did not invalidate.
  • What will Congress do about the 11th Amendment immunity in these situations? Several Senators have described Allergan’s deal as a loophole that needs to be closed.  If Congress is serious about taking on drug companies and reducing prescription drug costs, this bill may be a winner.

Thus, it seems that Allergan’s strategy has a lot of problems.  After Allergan announced its deal in September, other drug companies began considering the same strategy.  Given the way things have turned out so far, however, these companies may now be reluctant to jump on the bandwagon.

 

In Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-1455-WCB (EDTX October 16, 2017 Order), a Federal District Court recently invalidated several patents covering Allergan’s dry-eye drug Restasis.  The ruling is notable because these are the same six patents Allegan just weeks ago transferred to the Saint Regis Mohawk Native American tribe in an effort to shield them from review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).  This controversial transfer in an attempt to protect the patents from inter partes review at the PTAB via the tribe’s sovereign immunity received sharp criticism from generic drug manufactures and some in Congress.  Sovereign immunity, however, was not argued in District Court action.

The District Court dispute is a Hatch-Waxman Act case that relates to a condition known as “dry eye” and a pharmaceutical product known as “Restasis” that is intended to address that condition.  Restasis is an emulsion consisting of various components, including the active ingredient cyclosporin A, an immunosuppressant, which is dissolved in castor oil, a fatty acid glyceride.  Restasis, which is manufactured by plaintiff Allergan, Inc., is protected by six related patents, “the Restasis patents.”  Generic drug manufacturers Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Akorn, Inc.; Mylan, Inc.; and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., that wish to manufacture and sell bioequivalent drugs having the same components as Restasis challenged that the patents asserted by Allergan are invalid in defense to a patent infringement suit filed by Allergan.

Since this was a Hatch-Waxman Act case, the case was tried to judge and not a jury.  Thus, it was up to the court to make the factual determination as to the validity of the patents.  In determining the validity of the patents, the court found “that the prior art does not describe the Restasis formulation with sufficient specificity to satisfy the test for anticipation,” meaning no single reference invalidated any of the patents.  However, the court also found that “in view of all the evidence, including the prior art, the evidence of unexpected results, the evidence of objective considerations, and the motivation to combine the prior art references of Sall and the Ding I and Ding II patents, the Court concludes that the defendants have satisfied their burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the Restasis patents would have been obvious.”  In other words, the court found the patents invalid on obviousness grounds, meaning multiple pieces of prior art in combination – and with a motivation to combine them- disclosed all limitations of the asserted patent claims.

Viewed from a broader perspective, the Court summarized from the evidence from the case as follows: “There is no doubt that Allergan has invented a useful and successful pharmaceutical product. It has been richly rewarded for that invention in large measure because it was able to get patent protection for the invention in 1995 when the Ding I patent issued. Allergan had 20 years of patent protection for its invention and ultimately for Restasis, the commercial embodiment of that invention, which was clearly covered by Ding I.

Although Allergan kept continuation applications alive for some years after Restasis was approved by the FDA, it ultimately conceded to the PTO in 2009 that the claims of the continuation applications that were directed to the Restasis formulation would have been obvious in light of the Ding I patent. However, in 2013, a few months before the expiration date of the Ding I patent, Allergan returned to the PTO, withdrew its concession of obviousness, and renewed its effort to obtain further patent protection for Restasis. Allergan’s theory in prosecuting the new applications was that the Restasis formulation, although falling within the scope of the Ding I patent, surprisingly produced exceptionally good results, so much so that the particular formulation for Restasis was entitled to patent protection even though that formulation fell within the scope of the ranges of values disclosed and claimed in Ding I. Allergan persuaded the examiner to issue the patent by way of a presentation that was more advocacy than science. The presentation suggested that the Restasis formulation resulted in efficacy levels up to eight times as great as would be expected based on studies of the formulations disclosed in the Ding I patent. In fact, a closer examination of the results of the clinical studies on which Allergan relied makes it clear that the presentation to the PTO substantially overstated the difference between the clinical results obtained with the Ding formulations and the clinical results obtained with the Restasis formulation. The actual clinical results, interpreted properly, show no significant difference in efficacy between the Restasis formulation and the 0.1% formulation that was Example 1D of the Ding I patent.

At trial, Allergan presented essentially the same theory—that the Restasis formulation produced results that were unexpected in light of the prior art—albeit without urging upon the Court the evidence that Allergan had presented to the PTO. In so doing, Allergan has had to deal with the problem that a considerable amount of highly pertinent prior art had accumulated by the 2003 priority date of the Restasis patents. Not only does the Ding I patent pose a problem for Allergan, but the papers by Sall and Stevenson revealed a great deal of information about the studies on which Allergan relies to make its unexpected results case.”

Thus, in light of this evidence, the Court concluded that Allergan is not entitled to renewed patent rights for Restasis in the form of a second wave of patent protection based on the extensive amount of pertinent prior art and the Court’s factual assessment of Allergan’s showing of unexpected results.  The Court therefore held that while Allergan has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants have infringed the asserted claims of the Restasis patents, the defendants have proved by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the Restasis patents are invalid for obviousness.

In sum, and while Allegan may appeal this ruling from the district court, the outcome of which is hard to predict, for now its Restasis patents were found invalid even after all the hassle Allegan went to protect them by assigning them to the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe.

Just Google it. Can you Google the score? Have you Googled the restaurant’s reviews? These are all common phrases in today’s internet-reliant society, and it’s entirely due to the creation of Google and its widespread success. By all measures, this should be a good thing for Google. Its company’s primary trademark, Google, has become such an integral part of society that it is now ingrained in our everyday vocabulary as a verb, and even further ingrained in our everyday usage. But for a company with valuable intellectual property rights in its Google trademark, its everyday usage in a general sense, meaning to perform an internet-based search, whether through Google or another search engine, could prove disadvantageous at some point in the future.

In fact, Google recently is currently dealing with an appeal involving these issues after a pair of individuals registered more than 700 domain names incorporating the word Google, including googlejxholdings.com, googleadam.com, and googlekellyclarkson.com. In response to these filings, Google filed a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum, claiming likelihood of consumer confusion and cybersquatting. The arbitration panel agreed with Google and transferred the domain names to Google. In ruling on the dispute, the panel found the domains confusingly similar to Google’s federally registered trademarks, and stated that the registrant had no legitimate interest in the domains and had registered them in bad faith.

Shortly after the arbitration panel issued its ruling, an individual who co-owned some of the domain names that the above-mentioned registrant was required to transfer to Google filed a lawsuit against Google in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, attempting to cancel Google’s marks on the ground that they have become generic due to everyday verb usage. The registrant eventually joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff.

The plaintiffs moved the District Court for summary judgment, claiming that it was indisputable that the public used the word Google as a verb and “verb use constitutes generic use as a matter of law.” The District Court found in favor of Google, determining that the Google mark was not generic. As an example of another legitimately registered trademark often used as a verb to describe a category of activity, Judge Stephen M. McNamee cited the Photoshop trademark. Judge McNamee discussed how, much like Google, people often use Photoshop to refer to something aside from Adobe’s trademarked product. Judge McNamee further remarked that “It cannot be understated that a mark is not rendered generic merely because the mark serves a synecdochian ‘dual function’ of identifying the genus of services to which the species belongs.”

Still unsatisfied, the plaintiffs petitioned the 9th Circuit for review. In an opinion written by Circuit Judge Richard Tallman, the 9th Circuit reiterated Judge McNamee’s findings and once again acknowledged that the mere use of a word as a verb is insufficient to show genericide. But apparently the opinions of Judge McNamee and Judge Tallman are still not enough for these plaintiffs. They have now petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

The petition for review calls the 9th Circuit’s decision “dangerous” for holding that the use of a trademark as a verb is irrelevant to the determination of whether it has become generic. It also states that the decision is in conflict with the opinions of various experts who have stated that trademarks are proper adjectives, which should not be used as verbs. According to the petition, “[u]nchecked indiscriminate verb usage of trademarks could, and will, lead to a reality where the public can no longer recall that the verb derives from a trademark, while simultaneously allowing the trademark to exist on the principal register in perpetuity[.]” Finally, the petition states that public appropriation of Photoshop, Xerox, and other marks is something to be encouraged, as it is an example of how language is a dynamic, living being, meeting the needs of speakers.

It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on this matter, but given that the Supreme Court only grants review to a select number of cases, I suspect we will not find out. This is especially true given that neither the 9th Circuit nor the District Court stated that verb use is irrelevant to the analysis, as it is represented in the petition, but simply that verb use alone is insufficient to demonstrate genericide. However, stranger things have happened.

Until the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States district courts had interpreted the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), to allow plaintiffs to bring a patent infringement case against a domestic corporation in any district court where there is personal jurisdiction over that corporate defendant.  The Supreme Court’s TC Heartland ruling, however, clarified that personal jurisdiction alone does not convey venue for patent cases under the patent venue statute.  But that clarification led to confusion as to how to interpret the venue statute itself.  The Federal Circuit just addressed that confusion in In re Cray Inc. 

Specifically, the patent venue statute provides that “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in either 1) “the judicial district where the defendant resides” or 2) “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.”  Prior to TC Heartland, courts had found that a domestic corporation resides in any judicial district where the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction, and thus venue was proper in those districts.  In TC Heartland, the Supreme Court limited venue under the first prong explaining that a corporation only resides in its state of incorporation.  For plaintiffs wishing to sue corporations in judicial districts outside the defendant’s state of incorporation, the TC Heartland ruling shifted the focus to the second prong of the patent venue statute.  The second prong states that a domestic corporation can be sued for patent infringement “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.”

Following TC Heartland, defendants filed a flurry of motions to dismiss for lack of venue or, in the alternative, to transfer cases.  Corporations argued they had been improperly sued in venues where they had no “regular and established place of business.”  But what is a “regular and established place of business”?  Prior to the TC Heartland ruling, venue was typically shown under the first prong based on where a corporation resides, so the courts had not really dealt with the requirements for a “regular and established place of business” under the second prong of the venue statute.  Now courts were forced to address this issue and different courts were coming to different conclusions, which led the Federal Circuit to address this issue in response to Cray’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

Cray’s petition arose from Judge Gilstrap’s venue ruling in Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc. (“Transfer Order”).  More specifically, Raytheon filed a patent infringement action against Cray in the Eastern District of Texas.  Cray is a Washington corporation.  Cray did not rent or own property in the Eastern District of Texas but allowed two employees to work remotely from their homes in that district.  One of those employees was a “sales executive” with sales in excess of $345 million over approximately seven years.  That employee received reimbursement for cell phone charges, internet fees, and mileage related to his work for Cray.  The employee, however, did not store products or product literature in his home.  Further, he was never paid for use of his home as a business office.  Cray moved to transfer the case for lack of venue arguing that it did not reside in the district and did not maintain a regular and established place of business in the district.

In his Transfer Order, Judge Gilstrap not only found venue proper in the Eastern District of Texas but also went on “‘[f]or the benefit of’ other litigants and counsel to set out four factors for inquiries into what constitutes a regular and established place[] of business ‘in the modern era,’ including physical presence, defendant’s representations, benefits received, and targeted interactions with the district.”

The Federal Circuit reversed stating that “[a]lthough the law was unclear and the error understandable, the district court abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard, which we now clarify in this opinion.”  The Federal Circuit explained that its “analysis of the case law and statute reveal three general requirements” for whether a corporation has a “regular and established place of business” in a judicial district.  These requirements include:  “(1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant.

The Federal Circuit further explained that while the “‘place’ need not be a ‘fixed physical presence in the sense of a formal office or store,” “there must still be a physical, geographical location in the district from which the business of the defendant is carried out.”  A test that encompasses virtual spaces or electronic communications would improperly expand the venue statute.  Further, “the mere fact that a defendant has advertised that it has a place of business or has even set up an office is not sufficient; the defendant must actually engage in business from that location.”  In addition, for a business to be “regular and established,” the activity cannot be sporadic or transient in nature.  Further, “[t]he defendant must establish or ratify the place of business.  It is not enough that the employee does so on his or her own.”  Therefore, an employee that merely works from home does not necessarily create venue in the district.

It is now clear that personal jurisdiction and venue or two separate requirements for patent infringement cases.  Further, in many instances, plaintiffs will have significantly fewer options for the districts where they can bring patent infringement cases against domestic corporations under the patent venue statute.