Latest 2 Cases: Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Intellectual Property), GS CleanTech Corp. v. Adkins Energy LLC (Intellectual ...

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The Supreme Court Considers Whether an Independent Agency with a Single Director Who Can Be Removed Only “For Cause” is Constitutional

RODGER CITRON

Rodger Citron, Associate Dean for Research & Scholarship and Professor of Law at Touro Law, comments on a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument this week that presents the question whether an independent agency with a single director who can be removed only “for cause” violates the separation of powers principle enshrined in the Constitution. Citron notes that the decision to hear the case is unusual in that there is no conflict among the federal appeals courts, but he points out that that the government’s support of the cert. petition and then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent on the issue when it came before the D.C. Circuit likely helped the present case come before the Court.

Read More

Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission

Docket: 18-1450

Opinion Date: March 2, 2020

Judge: Pauline Newman

Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, International Law, International Trade, Patents

The International Trade Commission (ITC) investigated a complaint under Tariff Act Section 337, alleging that Comcast’s customers directly infringe patents by using Comcast’s X1 system. The patents claim an interactive television program guide system for remote access to television programs. An ALJ found a violation, concluding that the X1 set-top boxes are imported by ARRIS and Technicolor and that Comcast is sufficiently involved with the design, manufacture, and importation of the products, such that it is an importer under Section 337. The ITC affirmed, stating that Comcast induced infringement and that Comcast "instructs, directs, or advises its customers on how to carry out direct infringement.” The ITC affirmed that ARRIS and Technicolor do not directly infringe because they do not provide a “remote access device” as required by the claims and do not contributorily infringe because the set-top boxes have substantial non-infringing uses. The ITC issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed to Comcast. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Comcast’s arguments that its conduct is not actionable under Section 337 because Comcast’s inducing conduct “takes place entirely domestically, well after, and unrelated to," the importation and that Comcast does not itself import the articles. The ITC has authority (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) to issue an exclusion order that blocks the importation of articles manufactured and imported by ARRIS and Technicolor, despite its determination that they did not violate Section 337 and did not infringe the patents.

GS CleanTech Corp. v. Adkins Energy LLC

Docket: 16-2231

Opinion Date: March 2, 2020

Judge: Wallach

Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Patents

The Patents-in-Suit are directed to the recovery of oil from a dry mill ethanol plant’s byproduct, thin stillage, for example, “evaporating the thin stillage to form a concentrate,” or syrup, and then “separating the oil from the concentrate using a disk stack centrifuge.” In an infringement suit, the district court determined that specified claims were invalid because of the on-sale bar, anticipation, obviousness, incorrect inventorship, inadequate written description, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness. The court concluded that, under the UCC, a signed proposal would have constituted a commercial contract and that a reasonable jury would not have concluded that the proposal was an offer to test its claimed invention as the Inventors knew the method could be successfully reduced to practice and had been reduced to practice. After an inequitable conduct bench trial, the court concluded that the patents were ready for patenting when the Inventors provided the 2003 Proposal and that CleanTech committed inequitable conduct: The "Inventors made a mistake” by offering the invention for sale in 2003, and later affirmatively hid that fact from the lawyers and the Patent Office. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that CleanTech and its lawyers made a deliberate decision to withhold material information with the specific intent to deceive the Patent Office.