Category: Litigation

Wyndham Data Breach Ruling Cleared for Potential Appeal to Third Circuit

COV_cmyk_C

 

U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas ruled on Monday that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit can review her conclusion that Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act provides the FTC with authority to bring actions arising from companies’ data security violations.

In April of this year, Judge Salas denied Wyndham Hotels and Resorts’ motion to dismiss a FTC lawsuit that alleges that Wyndham violated the FTC Act’s prohibition against “unfair practices” by failing to provide reasonable security for its customers’ personal information. Although her order is not a final ruling and is not binding on any other judge, it received considerable attention because it was the first time that a court has weighed in on the scope of the FTC’s authority over data security and privacy matters.

Denials of motions to dismiss ordinarily are not immediately appealable, absent permission from both the district court and the court of appeals.  In her ruling on Monday, Judge Salas granted Wyndham’s motion to appeal her order to the Third Circuit.  Judge Salas reasoned that there is substantial grounds for differences of opinion on two issues: (1) whether the FTC can bring a Section 5 unfairness claim involving data security; and (2) whether the FTC must formally promulgate regulations before bringing its unfairness claim.

If the Third Circuit grants Wyndham’s Petition to Appeal, the appellate court will review the legal conclusions in Judge Salas’s April order.  If the Third Circuit denies the petition, the case will proceed in the district court.  Even if the Third Circuit denies this petition for review, it ultimately may hear an appeal of the outcome of summary judgment proceedings or a trial in this case.

Article By:

Jeff Kosseff
Of:
Covington & Burling LLP

Halliburton II: Supreme Court Upholds Basic Presumption

Morgan Lewis logo

On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II).[1] Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Scalia and Alito joined.

The Halliburton II case generated significant publicity because it presented the Supreme Court with the opportunity to reexamine the fraud-on-the-market presumption created in Basic v. Levinson.[2] The Court in Basic held that, in a securities fraud class action, the plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reliance and, therefore, does not have to prove that each investor in the class relied on any alleged material misrepresentation. The foundation for the fraud-on-the market theory is the efficient-market theory, which presumes that, in an efficient market, all material, public information about a company is absorbed by the marketplace and reflected in the price of the security. The efficient-market theory has been under increasing attack in recent years, leading many to believe that the time may have come to overturn Basic.

In Halliburton II, the Supreme Court addressed whether to continue the fraud-on-the-market presumption unchanged, to cease the applicability of the fraud-on-the-market presumption altogether, or to alter the presumption. In the Court’s opinion, the majority declined to overrule or modify Basic’s presumption of classwide reliance, but it did hold that defendants may rebut the presumption at the class certification stage by introducing evidence that the alleged misrepresentation did not impact the market price. The majority determined that Halliburton had not demonstrated the “special justification” necessary to overturn “a long-settled precedent.”[3] The majority also rejected Halliburton’s request that the plaintiffs be required to show a price impact to invoke the presumption because “this proposal would radically alter the required showing for the reliance element.”[4] The majority did hold that defendants can rebut the presumption by showing lack of price impact at the class certification stage because “[t]his restriction makes no sense, and can readily lead to bizarre results.”[5] The majority therefore vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, noted that, although the decision would “broaden the scope of discovery available at certification,” the increased burden would be on defendants to show the absence of price impact, not on plaintiffs whose burden to raise the presumption of reliance had not changed.[6]

In a separate opinion concurring only in the judgment, Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito, argued that Basic should be overturned for three reasons. First, the fraud-on-the–market theory has “lost its luster”[7] in light of recent developments in economic theory.[8] Second, the presumption permits plaintiffs to bypass the requirement—as set forth in some of the Court’s most recent decisions on class certification—that plaintiffs affirmatively demonstrate compliance with Rule 23. Third, the Basic presumption of reliance is “largely irrebuttable” because “[a]fter class certification, courts have refused to allow defendants to challenge any plaintiff’s reliance on the integrity of the market price prior to a determination on classwide liability,”[9] therefore effectively eliminating the reliance requirement.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for securities fraud litigation, particularly at the class certification stage. Although plaintiffs need not prove direct price impact and may instead still raise the presumption of reliance by showing an efficient market and that the information was material and public, defendants may now rebut this presumption before class certification by showing a lack of price impact. We believe that defendants’ ability to rebut the presumption by showing no price impact effectively swallows the rule that plaintiffs need not prove a price impact. This will undoubtedly lead to a battle of the experts at the class certification stage. Although the Court’s decision does not explicitly affect other proceedings, such as a motion to dismiss, the scope of the decision will certainly be tested in the coming months and years.

Article By:

John M. Vassos
Karen Pieslak Pohlmann
Laura E. Hughes
Of:
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

[1]. No. 13-317 (U.S. June 23, 2014), available here.

[2]. 485 U.S. 224 (1988).

[3]. Halliburton II, No. 13-317, slip op. at 4; see generally id. at 4–16.

[4]. Id. at 17.

[5]. Id. at 19.

[6]. Id. at 1 (Ginsburg, J., concurring).

[7]. Id. at 7 (Thomas, J., concurring).

[8]. Id. at 8–9.

[9]. Id. at 13.

Alice v. CLS Bank: Supreme Court Continues to Grope in Dark for Contours of Abstract Idea Exception

Schwegman Lundberg Woessner

In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014), the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the one-paragraph per curium opinion of the en banc Federal Circuit, which found all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,970,479, 6,912,510, 7,149,720, and 7,725,375 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea.

The Court based its affirmance on an application of a two-step process outlined in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, 566 U.S. ___ (2012). The first step is the determination of whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. This step implicitly includes the identification of the concept at issue. The second step is to determine if the claims recite “an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.”

The Court avoided providing “the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category” by relying on the similarity between Alice’s claims for intermediated settlement and Bilski’s claims for hedging. The Court characterized the Bilski claims as “a method of organizing human activity.” Accordingly, while only three justices signed Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence, stating that “any claim that merely describes a method of doing business does not qualify as a ‘process’ under §101,” the unanimous decision does implicate business methods as likely directed to abstract ideas.

At the Federal Circuit, the splintered opinion included a four-judge dissent that argued that the system claims should be patent-eligible even though the method claims were not. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, finding that if the system claims were treated differently under §101, “an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept” which would “make the determination of patent eligibility depend simply on the draftsman’s art.” To convey patent-eligibility, the claims at issue must be “significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea … using some unspecified, generic computer.”

In my previous post regarding the oral argument before the Supreme Court, I noted that the Court seemed to be looking for reasonable and clear rules regarding the limits of the abstract idea exception to patentable subject matter, but did not get such a rule from any party. Perhaps as a result, this case was decided purely on its similarity to Bilski, and without providing much guidance as to the scope of the exception.

My thanks to Domenico Ippolito for this posting.

© 2014 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

Article By:

Steven Lundberg
Of:
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

Michigan District Court Confirms $1.6 Million Judgment Against Former Spartan and Detroit Red Wing Hockey Player

Varnum LLP

In a 17-page opinion issued on June 5, 2014, the Honorable Gordon J. Quist of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan entered an order recognizing a judgment entered in Switzerland against former NHL hockey player Kevin Miller. The case is of particular local interest in that Miller was born and raised in Lansing, played college hockey for Michigan State University, and played professional hockey for a number of teams, including the Detroit Red Wings.

The underlying judgment against Miller arose out of an on-ice incident on October 31, 2010, between Miller and Andrew McKim during a Swiss hockey league game. Miller checked McKim from behind, hitting McKim in the head and neck and causing McKim to fall on the ice and hit his head. McKim suffered a concussion and other injuries and was hospitalized for several weeks. The Swiss hockey league determined that Miller’s check was intentional and suspended Miller for eight games.

In addition, McKim brought a civil lawsuit against Miller for injuries resulting from the incident. At the conclusion of the civil proceedings in Switzerland, judgment was ultimately entered in the amount of 1 million Swiss Francs against Miller, which, when converted to United States dollars, and adding interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, resulted in a current judgment amount of approximately US $1.6 million.

Miller challenged recognition of the judgment under the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (“FCMJRA”), which Michigan has adopted. Miller raised two arguments: (1) that the Swiss judgment was repugnant to public policy and violated due process because Miller was not allowed to cross-examine the independent expert who provided opinion testimony about Miller’s intent at the time he checked McKim; and (2) that it was repugnant to public policy and violated due process for the Swiss civil tribunal to consider as evidence the determination by the Swiss hockey league that Miller’s check of McKim was intentional.

The district court was not persuaded that either of these objections rose to the level of the Swiss judgment being repugnant to public policy. The court noted that the fact that Swiss law does not allow for cross-examination of expert witnesses “is a mere difference of procedure that does not trigger the public policy exception.” Op. at 11. The district court also noted that the civil tribunal’s consideration of the hockey tribunal’s disciplinary determination was not repugnant to Michigan public policy in that the hockey tribunal’s determination was only one of numerous sources of information, and the “Swiss civil court did not accord preclusive effect to the National League proceeding that determined that Miller intentionally injured McKim.” Id. at 12.

The district court also held that these concerns did not deny Miller due process in the Swiss civil proceedings. The district court clarified that foreign tribunals do not have to provide identical procedural safeguards as United States courts, but rather “must only be compatible in that they do not offend the notion of basic fairness.” Id. at 14. Although the court acknowledged that the procedures in the Swiss tribunal were not identical to those in the United States, particularly the restriction on Miller’s ability to cross-examine the independent expert, “the Court cannot say the Judgment presents a serious injustice or lacks basic fairness, such that nonrecognition is appropriate.” Id. at 15.

© 2014 Varnum LLP

Article By:

Bryan R. Walters
Of:
Varnum LLP

 

Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Dynamic Advances, LLC, Decision Denying Institution

DrinkerBiddle

Takeaway: A voluntary dismissal of a litigation without prejudice will not nullify service of a complaint for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) if that litigation is immediately continued in a consolidated case.

In its Decision, the Board denied institution of the Inter Partes Review as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because it was not filed within the statutory period of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).  The date of service of two different complaints was an issue of primary focus by the Board.

In a first patent litigation, Patent Owner (Dynamic Advances) filed a complaint on October 19, 2012. Dynamic Advances, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01579-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.)(Dynamic I).  The complaint for the first litigation was served on Petitioner (Apple) on October 23, 2012.  In a second patent litigation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Dynamic Advances jointly filed a complaint on June 3, 2013. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. & Dynamic Advances, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00633-DNH-DEP (N.D.N.Y.)(Dynamic II).  The complaint for the second litigation was served on Petitioner (Apple) on June 6, 2013.

The Petition in the instant proceeding was filed on January 3, 2014.  Thus, the service date of October 23, 2012 for the first litigation (Dynamic I) was more than 12 months prior to the filing of the Petition, whereas the service date of June 6, 2013 for the second litigation (Dynamic II) was less than 12 months prior to the filing date of the Petition.  The Board found that service of the first complaint on October 23, 2012, rather than service of the second complaint on June 6, 2013, controlled for purposes of determining whether the requested inter partes review was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).  Because the service date of October 23, 2012 for the first litigation (Dynamic I) was more than 12 months prior to the filing of the Petition, the Board found that the Petition was not filed within the statutory period of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

The Board’s rationale in reaching this conclusion related to the fact that on July 22, 2013, the court ordered consolidation of Dynamic I and Dynamic II under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42.  In doing so, the court ordered that pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties, Dynamic I was “dismissed without prejudice and the parties would proceed to litigate their claims and defenses in [Dynamic II].”

Petitioner argued that under the decision in Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GmbH & KG, IPR2012-0004 (“holding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice nullified service of the complaint for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)”), service of the first complaint on October 23, 2012 was not effective.  According to Petitioner, as in Macauto, the facts of the present case have the effect of leaving the parties as if the first action had never been brought.

The Board disagreed, finding that “Dynamic I cannot be treated as if that case had never been filed under the rationale of Macauto.”  Instead, the Board found that it was “persuaded that the circumstances in the instant case weigh in favor of close scrutiny of the effect of the dismissal of Dynamic I, because that cause of action, although dismissed, was continued immediately in Dynamic II.”

This proceeding was the third time that Petitioner had petitioned for inter partes review against the ‘798 patent.  In IPR2014-00077, institution was denied.  IPR2014-00320 was filed concurrently with the petition for this proceeding.

Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Dynamic Advances, LLC,IPR2014-00319
Paper 12: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
Dated: June 12, 2014
Patent 7,177,798 B2
Before: Josiah C. Cocks, Bryan F. Moore, and Miriam L. Quinn
Written by: Moore
Related proceedings: IPR2014-00077; IPR2014-00320; Dynamic Advances, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01579-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.); Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. & Dynamic Advances, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00633-DNH-DEP (N.D.N.Y.)

Article By:

Christopher Bruenjes
Of:
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Federal Circuit Issues Decision Affirming Obviousness of a Molecule Patent Claim

Katten Muchin

On June 12, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the obviousness of a patent claim directed to a drug molecule. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (2014). This is an example of the Federal Circuit holding a molecule patent invalid for obviousness.

The Federal Circuit upheld US District Court for the District of Delaware Magistrate Judge Christopher Burke’s opinion that held claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,206,244 invalid in light of a structurally similar molecule. Claim 8 covers the entecavir molecule, which is the active ingredient in BMS’ Baraclude® tablets, which are designed to treat hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Teva successfully argued that one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to make an anti-HBV drug in October 1990 would have selected a prior art compound called 2′-CDG as a “lead compound” and would have modified it by adding a methylene (i.e. carbon-carbon double bond) group as indicated in the diagram to the right, below.

Lead Compound

Relying on testimony from both parties’ experts and prior art publications, the Federal Circuit saw no error in the district court’s finding that 2′-CDG was a proper lead compound. There was sufficient evidence that one of ordinary skill would have studied carbocyclic nucleosides generally, and 2′-CDG specifically, as antiviral drugs, especially because BMS’ expert admitted that “medicinal chemists . . . were actually treating and using 2′-CDG as a lead compound” in the search for new antivirals. Slip. Op. at 9-10. BMS argued that 2′-CDG would not be a lead compound because it was discovered to be toxic after the filing date of the patent. Id. at 10. The Federal Circuit (and the district court) rejected BMS’ argument because in October 1990 (i.e. the date of the proper inquiry), “2′-CDG was not yet known to have high toxicity” and BMS’ expert agreed that researchers thought 2′-CDG was a promising compound at that time. Id. at 10.

Motivation to Modify

The Federal Circuit also found that the record amply supported the district court’s conclusion on motivation to modify 2′-CDG to make the patented compound, entecavir. Slip Op. at 11-14. For example, both parties’ experts agreed that chemists were making changes on the carbocyclic ring in the prior art, and Teva’s expert stated that such changes resulted in greater activity than changes elsewhere on the molecule. Id. at 12. Unrefuted expert testimony also explained that the modification would take place at the 2′ or 5′ position on the carbocyclic ring because small changes could easily be made only at these positions. Id. at 12. The experts also agreed that the skilled artisan would focus on the smallest elements for the substitution, and BMS’ expert stated that he would “rule out everything but the carbon.” Id.The Federal Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s finding that the modification required was a minor one based on the testimony of both parties’ experts and a prior art article teaching improved antiviral activity by addition of a methylene group to a carbocyclic nucleoside. Id. at 12-13.

Reasonable Expectation of Success

Based on the prior art and the structural similarity of 2′-CDG and entecavir, the Federal Circuit found no error in the district court’s finding of “reasonable expectation of success.” Id. at 14. In doing so, the Federal Circuit rejected a bright-line rule regarding reasonable expectation of success in new chemical entities proposed by BMS. Specifically, BMS had argued that the existence of unexpected properties forecloses a finding of a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 14. Citing its en banc In re Dillon decision, the Federal Circuit held that “unexpected results do not per se defeat, or prevent, the finding that a modification to a lead compound will yield expected, beneficial properties.” Id. at 15. Instead, the court found that unexpected results should be analyzed as secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Id.

Secondary Considerations

The Federal Circuit found no reversible errors in the district court’s analysis of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.[1] The Federal Circuit was deferential to the lower court’s factual findings regarding evidence of secondary considerations, including unexpected results. Id. at 18. The district court found that the results regarding entecavir’s high potency and large therapeutic window were not entirely unexpected because it was known in the prior art that 2′-CDG was effective against HBV and had a good therapeutic window. Id. They were differences of degree, not kind. Id. While the district court credited entecavir’s high barrier to resistance as an unexpected property, the three properties taken together were not sufficient to support nonobviousness. Id. at 17-18.

Article By:

Robert B. Breisblatt
Christopher B. Ferenc
Jeffrey A. Finn
Samson Helfgott
Martin S. Masar III, PhD
Hassan Abbas Shakir
Of:
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

[1] The Federal Circuit found that the district court made two legal errors (albeit harmless ones) in assessing unexpected results because it: (1) compared entecavir to another HBV drug on the market and not the closest prior art, 2′-CDG, and (2) looked at what the inventor knew, not a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 18-19. The Federal Circuit also found no error in the lower court’s findings on commercial success and long-felt need. Id. at 19.

Wisconsin Federal Court Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage: How Does This Affect the Administration of an Employer’s Employee Benefits?

Michael Best Logo

On Friday, June 6, 2014, Judge Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued a decision finding that Wisconsin’s constitutional amendment recognizing marriages only between men and women violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike several other federal judges who have considered the issue, Judge Crabb did not make her ruling immediately effective. Instead the Court asked the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the case to help her fashion an injunction to implement her ruling. The plaintiffs have until June 16, 2014, to submit this proposal. The State asked for clarification on the June 6, 2014 ruling and requested that the court stay its decision until it made a final decision on the scope of the injunctive relief. On June 9, 2014, the court denied the State’s motion. In response, the State appealed Judge Crabb’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago and requested an immediate stay of Judge Crabb’s order. The Seventh Circuit has solicited arguments from the parties to determine whether it has jurisdiction of the matter.

In response to Judge Crabb’s decision, many of the State’s counties have begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the state. Others have declined to do so and have, instead, sought guidance from counsel or the Attorney General.

Addressing the Change

Judge Crabb’s decision, and issuance of Wisconsin same-sex marriage licenses, has injected some uncertainty into benefit plan administration in Wisconsin. Based upon the state of the prior law, it is likely that a Wisconsin employer will have more employees with domestic partners than employees with same-sex spouses through legal marriages formed elsewhere. Nevertheless, same-sex benefits are certainly an evolving issue for employers.

Family and Medical Leave

Registered and unregistered domestic partners were already covered under the Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave Act. Because an unregistered domestic partnership does not require a formal filing with a county clerk, it appears that the state law in this context is relatively unaffected.

On the other hand, the federal FMLA is substantially affected. The definition of spouse under the federal regulations requires that the marriage must be recognized by the state of residence. Most FMLA policies do not distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex partners. Consequently, if Judge Crabb’s decision stands, requests for FMLA leave relating to same-sex spouses must be recognized under both federal and Wisconsin law if the leave is otherwise appropriate under the law.

Until the ramifications of the injunctive language are known, employers should pay particular attention to the language of their FMLA policies before making any determination about FMLA requests. Depending on how the courts ultimately rule, an employer’s FMLA policy may or may not require amendment. Regardless, if an employee asks about leave for a same-sex spouse, legal counsel should be consulted.

Benefits

The status of the law will remain uncertain until Judge Crabb makes a decision regarding whether to issue an injunction and the form such an order would take. If an injunction is issued and then stands following the anticipated appeal, employers who employ employees who have a same-sex spouse would no longer impute Wisconsin income tax for health coverage, and would otherwise recognize such spouse for all legal purposes. Because of the uncertainty in the current climate, employers should consider whether to continue imputing income for benefits provided to same-sex spouses until such time as transitional guidance is issued by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue on this issue.

Nothing has changed as it relates to unmarried domestic partners—these individuals are still subject to imputed income where the individual obtains coverage on behalf of his or her domestic partner.

Because employee benefits rules are largely governed by federal law, many same-sex marriage changes in employee benefits have been observed already since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor decision of last year. If the Judge Crabb ruling stands, the most significant change for Wisconsin employers will likely pertain to Wisconsin tax treatment of family health coverage.

What should employers do in response?

  • Account for those same-sex couples who may have been married in a state that permitted same-sex marriage or who are newly married in Wisconsin following Judge Crabb’s decision;
  • Examine if modification of FMLA policy/forms is warranted based upon the changes; and
  • Examine if modification to benefit plan materials may be necessary.
Article By:

Charles P. Stevens
Kirk A. Pelikan
Of:
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Supreme Court Finds that CERCLA Does Not Preempt Statutes of Repose – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

GT Law

On June 9th, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger et al., No.13-339 (June 9, 2014) (slip op.) [link], in which it held that CERCLA section 309, 42 U.S.C. § 9658, does not preempt statutes of repose, reversing the Fourth Circuit.  Section 9658(a) preempts state law statutes of limitation for personal injury and property damage claims related to the release of a hazardous substance.  Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, reaffirmed the oft-repeated “presumption against preemption” in reasoning that Section 9658 does not preempt state statutes of repose.  Statutes of limitations bar claims after a specified period of time based on when the claim accrued, whereas statutes of repose bar suits brought after a specified time since the defendant acted, regardless of whether the plaintiff has discovered the resulting injury.

CTS Corporation (“CTS”) operated an electronics plant in Asheville, North Carolina from 1959 to 1985.  CTS, which manufactured and disposed of electronics and electronic parts, contaminated its property with chlorinated solvents.  CTS sold the facility in 1987, and portions of the property were sold off.  Owners of those parcels, and adjacent landowners, brought suit against CTS in 2011, alleging that they discovered contamination on their properties in 2009.

The District Court found that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16), North Carolina’s statute of repose, barred the suit.  That section prohibits a “cause of action [from] . . . accru[ing] more than 10 years from the last act or omission of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action.”  The Fourth Circuit reversed on the basis of CERCLA preemption, finding that section 9658 was ambiguous because it did not explicitly list “statutes of repose.”

The main issue at oral argument before the Supreme Court was whether the distinction between statutes of repose and statutes of limitation actually existed when Congress enacted Section 9658.  As Justice Scalia said, “. . . I used to consider them when I was in law school and even as late as 1986 [when section 1958 was added by Congress], I would have considered that a statutes of limitations.  Now, you think Congress is smarter.  They know the law better.”  Although other justices seemed to agree—and the distinction had only begun to be made in the 1980s—a 1982 Senate Superfund Study Group Report made that distinction and recommended that the few states that have statutes of repose repeal them.  Despite the overlap between statutes of repose and statutes of limitation, the Court found the distinctions important—statutes of repose are not related to the accrual of any cause of action and  cannot be tolled.  Because the Study Report made the distinction between the two, and because section 9658 fails to mention “statute of repose” and is not written in a way to suggest that it is intended to include both, the Court reversed.

The Court cited, as additional support for its conclusion the “well-established ‘presumptions about the nature of pre-emption.’”  The presumption against preemption counsels courts, when interpreting the text of a preemption clause susceptible of more than one possible reading, to “ordinarily accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption.”   The Fourth Circuit failed to mention this presumption (although the dissent relied on it).

This opinion follows recent Superfund cases in the Supreme Court in two respects.  First, the Supreme Court attempts to apply the “natural reading” of the statutory text rather than to reach out to interpret the statute broadly to effectuate its “remedial purpose.”  Indeed, Justice Kennedy explicitly derides that rationale for interstitial lawmaking.  Second, the Supreme Court attempts to preserve ordinary state law principles to the greatest extent possible.  So, for example, United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998), was very respectful of state corporation law, and so too Waldburger is respectful of state tort law.  In this way, one might consider today’s decision to be fairly unremarkable.

The majority does not even address Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in which she and Justice Breyer worry that personal injuries with long latencies—like cancers—will go uncompensated.  But some of the long latencies arise not from the progress of some disease but of slow migration of a hazardous substance, in a groundwater plume for example.  Indeed, to the extent that many environmental toxic tort claims rest on allegations of property damage or diminution in value, the cancer model may be misplaced.

U.S. Supreme Court Makes It Easier To Avoid Method Patents Requiring Multiple Actors

Neal Gerber

On June 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a defendant was not liable for inducing infringement of a patented method where there is no direct infringement because the method steps are “divided” between the defendant and its customers. See Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 12–786. The Court was reviewing a 6-5 en banc decision from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that held a party might be liable for inducing infringement under 35 USC 271(b) where a defendant carried out some steps and encouraged others (such as its customers) to carry out the remaining steps. In other words, the performance of the method steps was divided between a party and its customers, so the party could be liable for inducing the performance of the remaining steps it did not perform itself.  The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment against Limelight, reasoning that there could be no liability for inducing infringement if no party directly infringed.

The Supreme Court relied on a prior decision by the Federal Circuit that there is no direct infringement of a method claim unless a single party performs every step of a claimed method or exercises “control or direction” over the entire process such that every step is attributable to that party. See Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Muniauction held that there was no direct infringement of a patented method when its distinct steps were performed by “mere arms-length cooperation” between parties. In Limelight, the Supreme Court “assumed” that Muniauction’s holding was correct but observed that the Federal Circuit could revisit it when the Limelight decision was remanded.

Both Limelight and Muniauction involved client-server scenarios for web-based businesses and cloud-based application services, but this decision has broad implications across a variety of fields, such as personalized or precision medicine.  For example, a patented method directed to diagnosing and treating a disease would not be infringed where a laboratory provides the diagnosis and the treating physician does not exercise “control or direction” over the steps performed by the laboratory.

Until Muniauction is further defined, the Court has returned the law to its state prior to the Federal Circuit’s Akamai holding, where liability turned on whether a single infringer exhibited sufficient “control or direction” over steps performed by others; if not, no one is liable for patent infringement.  For would-be infringers, this potentially provides a useful defense.  For patent applicants, it is a reminder to draft method claims in a manner such that all actions can be taken by a single entity.

Article By:

Michael B. Harlin
James P. Muraff
Kevin A. O’Connor Ph.D.
Mike R. Turner
Of:
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Supreme Court Nixes "Amorphous" Federal Circuit Indefiniteness Standard

ArmstrongTeasdale logo

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday reversed long-standing Federal Circuit precedent, replacing the test used to determine whether a patent is indefinite with a new reasonable certainty standard (NAUTILUS, INC. v. BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC., No. 13–369 (S. Ct. June 2, 2014).

The new reasonable certainty test raises the bar on the “clarity and precision” with whichpatents must be written. As a consequence, the burden on accused infringers attempting to invalidate patents based on ambiguous language is lowered. This new standard will prove especially helpful in the ongoing battle against patent trolls, who often wield portfolios of ambiguous or overly broad patents in an attempt to extract licensing fees. Tech companies, including Google, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc., which are frequent targets of patent trolls, urged the Supreme Court to adopt the “reasonable certainty” standard.

The new standard will also require more precision in drafting and prosecuting patent applications. Exactly how precise language will need to be remains to be seen, but the Court explained that the old standard incentivized patent applicants and practitioners to “inject ambiguity” into their claims. The new standard was established, in part, to eliminate this incentive. The Court commented that patent practitioners are in the best position to resolve ambiguity in patent claims. In light of the Supreme Court’s admonition, patent applicants and practitioners seeking broad coverage of their inventions should use language no broader than necessary to adequately cover their inventions.

The Supreme Court’s decision stemmed from a dispute between Biosig Instruments and Nautilus, Inc. Biosig sued Nautilus for infringement of a patented heart monitor for exercise machines, which registered electrical waves to estimate a user’s heart rate. Nautilus convinced the trial court that Biosig’s patent was invalid as indefinite. Applying its “insolubly ambiguous” test, the Federal Circuit found the patent valid. Biosig sought review by the Supreme Court.

Justice Ginsberg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. As embodied in the Patent Act, a patent must include “one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant claims as his invention.”

This notice requirement is satisfied, the Court held, where the claims of the patent, read in light of the specification and prosecution history, informs with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Like any property right, the boundaries of the patent monopoly should be clear. The failure to afford the public clear notice of what is claimed, “thereby appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them,” chills innovation by creating a risk of infringement in “zones of uncertainty.”

The High Court remanded the case with instructions that the Federal Circuit should no longer employ the “insolubly ambiguous” or “amenable to construction” tests of patent claim indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112, ¶ 2. These words can “leave courts and the patent bar at sea without a reliable compass.” While noting that the Supreme Court does not “micromanage the Federal Circuit’s particular word choice” in applying patent-law doctrines, Justice Ginsberg wrote, “we must ensure that the Federal Circuit’s test is at least ‘probative of the essential inquiry.’”

The Federal Circuit test, according to the High Court, “invoked a standard more amorphous than the statutory definiteness requirement allows.” In addition to breeding lower court confusion, the discredited “insolubly ambiguous” standard tolerated “some ambiguous claims but not others….” The Court’s new reasonable certainty standard requires more definite claim language.

Article By:

David W. Harlan
Jessica M. Mendez
Patrick Coyle
Samir R. Mehta
Of:
Armstrong Teasdale