IP Blog
Patent Licenses
Covenants Not to Sue Trigger Patent Exhaustion
The interaction of the patent exhaustion doctrine and covenants not to sue was highlighted in a recent opinion from the District of Delaware in Purdue v. Collegium. The court denied Collegium’s motion to dismiss, which was premised on Purdue’s covenant not to sue Collegium’s supplier. Purdue sued Collegium for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 9,861,583; 9,867,784; and 9,872,836 with its pain-relief...
Reasonable Patent Royalties Require Proper Apportionment
Damages for patent infringement must be apportioned to the infringing features of an accused product and supported by substantial evidence. Finjan, Inc., v. Blue Coat Systems Inc., No. 2016-2520 (January 10, 2018) (precedential). After considering subject matter eligibility and infringement of the asserted patents, the Federal Circuit reviewed the damages awarded by the jury, reversing awards unsupported by substantial evidence...
With License Ambiguous, Patent Exhaustion Heads to Jury
In Audio MPEG, Inc. v. Dell Inc., the Eastern District of Virginia denied summary judgment of patent exhaustion because it was ambiguous whether a license between Audio MPEG and Dell’s supplier Microsoft covered the allegedly infringing software, leaving the issue to the jury. Audio MPEG asserted that Dell’s sales of computers infringed three of its patents on encoding and decoding...
The Plain Meaning of a Covenant Not to Sue
How can you draft a covenant not to sue for patent infringement without agreeing to restrictions that will prevent you from enforcing your patent rights against some unknown party in the future? In Securus Technologies Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., Nos. 2016-1470, 2016-1506 (Jan 26, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that the plain and ordinary meaning of a covenant not...
When Are Patent Claims Standard-Essential?
The question of whether claims from 23 different patents were “essential” to the IEEE 802.11 standard (popularly known as Wi-Fi) was presented to the court in In re Innovatio Ip Ventures, MDL Docket No. 2303, Case No. 11 C 9308 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2013). In evaluating these claims, the court addressed a number of different issues related to determining...
Pleading Implied License as an Affirmative Defense to Patent Infringement
An implied license is an affirmative defense to patent infringement. Because the defense is, by definition, highly fact-specific, it is not always clear what allegations are required to adequately plead the implied license defense. However, requirements for pleading the defense, e.g., under an estoppel theory, are not unduly onerous. The court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the defense in...
When Is a Covenant Not to Sue Like a Patent License?
Although parties often go to great pains to distinguish covenants not to sue from patent licenses, those two legal constructs may not be treated any differently by the courts. For example, in Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corp. & Panasonic Corp. of N. Am., Inc., No. C-12-00660-RMW (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2013), the court accepted the proposition that “[u]nconditional covenants...
Broad Grant of Patent Rights Includes Reissues
The Federal Circuit has upheld Intel’s licensing defense where asserted reissue patents issued after the relevant license agreement was terminated. Intel Corp v. Negotiated Data Solutions, No. 2011-1448 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012). Intel and National Semiconductor entered into a broad patent cross-licensing agreement in 1976. Under that agreement, National licensed to Intel patents including the following: all classes or...
Patent Exhaustion Based on Foreign Sales
Sales outside the United States exhausted a patent owner’s rights in its U.S. patent, according to Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple, Inc., No. 10-CV-2618-H (KSC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167479 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012). Therefore, among rulings on summary judgment motions addressing a myriad of issues, the Court granted summary judgment to Canon on its affirmative defense of patent exhaustion...
2nd Cir. Applies Lear Doctrine to Pre-Lititgation Settlement Agreement
The Second Circuit has held that “a clause in a settlement agreement which bars a patent licensee from later challenging the patent’s validity is void for public policy reasons under the Supreme Court’s decision in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins.” Rates Technology Inc. v. Speakeasy, Inc., No. 11-4462-cv (July 10, 2012). Rates Technology Inc. (“RTI”), owner of two telecommunications patents, accused...