In ruling on motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, courts have found a number of patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a matter of law. However, in Berkheimer v. HP, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that in certain instances, the determination of patent eligibility under § 101 involves questions of fact and thus are questions for juries.
Continue Reading Juries Will Play Role in Some Questions of Patent Eligibility
The answer is “Yes” because the U.S. government has waived sovereign immunity for claims of patent infringement. This means the U.S. government can be sued for patent infringement in at least some instances. However, special rules and certain limitations apply as explained in 28 U.S.C. § 1498, which states, in part:
(a) Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.
As a result, patent infringement lawsuits against the United States government, are not brought in Federal district courts but rather in the Court of Federal Claims, which is a special court “authorized to hear primarily money claims founded upon the Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied in fact, with the United States.” See https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/. Further, a patent owner cannot sue a federal contractor who made the allegedly infringing product or performed the allegedly infringing method, but instead, must sue the U.S. government. Note, however, the U.S. government’s contract with the federal contractor may require the contractor to indemnify the government for liability and costs.
Continue Reading Can the U.S. Government Be Liable for Patent Infringement?
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Peter v. NantKwest, case number 18-801, struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent and often-criticized effort to recoup its legal fees – even in cases it loses – because it violates the so-called American Rule, which says U.S. litigants must typically pay for their own lawyers.
The Patent Act creates two mutually exclusive pathways to challenge an adverse decision by the USPTO. The first permits judicial review by direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. There is “no opportunity for the applicant to offer new evidence” in a §141 proceeding, and the Federal Circuit “must review the PTO’s decision on the same administrative record that was before the [agency].”
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Strikes down USPTO’s Request for Attorney’s Fees
The U.S. Supreme Court’s in TC Heartland v. Kraft Food, and subsequently the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Cray Inc., addressed where patent litigation can be filed under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1400(b). Specifically, the patent venue statute provides that “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement
By Audrey Millemann
In 2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals cast the net of patent infringement liability even more broadly, to cover direct infringement by “divided” (or “joint”) infringement. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Akamai V”). In that case, the Federal Circuit established
