Latest 4 Cases This Week: C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (Fed. Cir.), Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC (Fed. Cir.), Ferring ...

Update on Trump’s Coup: Do Not Think That This Is Guaranteed to End Well

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan explains why “being patient with Trump” is a recipe for disaster, why there are still reasons to be guardedly optimistic, and why this all could still end very badly. Buchanan argues that the present situation is not guaranteed end badly, but he cautions that a Trump coup is eminently possible.

Read More

C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Docket: 19-1756

Opinion Date: November 10, 2020

Judge: Jimmie V. Reyna

Areas of Law: Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patents

Bard and AngioDynamics both manufacture vascular access ports, devices implanted underneath a patient’s skin that allow the injection of fluid into the patient’s veins on a regular basis without starting an intravenous line each time. Vascular access ports were traditionally used to administer injections at low pressure and flow rates. Certain procedures, like computed tomography (CT) imaging, required the injection of fluids into patients at high pressure and high flow rates (power injection). As of 2005, vascular access ports were not FDA-approved for power injection but certain medical providers were using existing ports for power injection; in some cases, the pressure ruptured the port, seriously injuring the patient. Bard obtained FDA approval for PowerPort as the first vascular access port labeled for power injection and obtained the patents-in-suit. AngioDynamics then obtained FDA approval to market its own vascular access port products as suitable for power injection. Bard sued AngioDynamics for infringement. During the trial, the court granted judgment that the asserted claims were not infringed, were not willfully infringed, and were invalid as directed to printed matter. The Federal Circuit reversed. There was substantial evidence to support a jury finding of infringement and willfulness; the asserted claims are not directed solely to printed matter and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. A genuine dispute of material fact precludes summary judgment as to anticipation.

Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Docket: 20-1104

Opinion Date: November 9, 2020

Judge: Sharon Prost

Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Patents

Guitar effects pedals are electronic devices that affect the amplified sound of a guitar., usually placed on a pedalboard and controlled by foot operation. Pro Stage’s 023 patent asserts that prior art pedalboards were essentially wooden boards to which guitar effects pedals were mounted. IThe patent explained that there was a need for “an improved pedal effects board which allows easy positioning and changing of the individual guitar effects while providing a confined and secure area for cable routing and placement.” On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected Donner’s arguments that the claims were invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, finding that Donner did not prove that “Mullen” is analogous art. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. While the 023 patent and Mullen are not from the same field of endeavor, the Board also failed to properly identify and compare the purposes or problems to which Mullen and the patent relate. The Board’s articulation of the purpose of or problem to be solved by the 023 patent is so intertwined with the patent’s field of endeavor that it would effectively exclude consideration of any references outside that field.

Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Docket: 20-1098

Opinion Date: November 10, 2020

Judge: O'Malley

Areas of Law: Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patents

Fein was a consultant for Ferring Pharmaceuticals, involved in a project involving desmopressin, a synthetic analog of the naturally occurring hormone arginine vasopressin, which regulates the body’s retention of water. Fein suggested administration as a waterless orodispersible form to improve the bioavailability of the desmopressin. In 2002, Ferring filed a Great Britain Patent Application, covering an orodispersible desmopressin formulation but did not list any inventors. When Ferring experienced production delays, it undertook another clinical study with an intravenous desmopressin formulation. Fein was selected to oversee the U.S. study and suggested certain changes. After Ferring terminated Fein’s consulting agreement, both parties continued to test various formulations. Both Ferring and Fein filed patent applications. Fein’s company sold the right to commercialize a low-dose desmopressin intranasal spray. Ferring unsuccessfully requested reexamination of Fein’s patent, then filed a complaint asserting state law claims and claims for correction of inventorship of the Fein patents under 35 U.S.C. 256. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment, finding that conduct occurring before the issuance of Fein's patents could give rise to equitable estoppel of claims for correction of inventorship. The court noted Ferring’s inaction for over seven years following letters from Fein’s attorney. On counterclaims for correction of inventorship of Ferring’s patents, the court granted Ferring judgment. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for further development of the record, noting the fact-laden equitable issue and the need to avoid a rush to judgment.

In Re Apple Inc.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Docket: 20-135

Opinion Date: November 9, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patents

Uniloc sued Apple for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas (WDTX). Apple moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California (NDCA), arguing that it would be clearly more convenient to litigate the case there, 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Apple moved to stay activity in the case unrelated to its transfer motion. The district court denied the stay motion without explanation, then held a hearing on Apple’s transfer motion and stated that it would deny the motion and issue a written order soon. After the hearing, but before issuing a written order, the court held a Markman hearing, issued its claim construction order, held a discovery hearing regarding protective order, and issued a corresponding discovery order. Apple filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, which the Federal Circuit granted. The “district court barreled ahead on the merits in significant respects” and clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer. The district court erred by failing to meaningfully consider the wealth of important information in NDCA and misapplied the law by giving too much significance to the fact that the inventors and patent prosecutor live closer to WDTX than NDCA and in concluding that judicial economy weighed against transfer because NDCA has more pending cases than WDTX.