The following arguments will be available to the public live, both in-person and through online audio streaming. Access information will be available by 9 AM ET each day of argument at: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/.
Tuesday, April 2, 2024, 10:00 A.M.
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 23-1035, Courtroom 201, Panel D
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC ("Realtime") filed a patent infringement suit against DISH, Sling TV, L.L.C, and related entities (collectively, "DISH") asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610 ("the '610 patent"). DISH filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the '610 patent is directed towards patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. The district court denied the motion on the ground that claim construction was necessary. The district court subsequently issued a claim construction order construing the disputed terms. Shortly thereafter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") instituted inter partes review ("IPR") of the '610 patent, and Realtime and DISH filed a joint motion to stay pending those IPRs. The IPR for the '610 patent was terminated as untimely, so Realtime requested that the stay be lifted. DISH filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the asserted claims of the '610 patent were ineligible under §101, and the district court granted the motion. DISH then filed a motion for attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. §285, and the district court granted this motion, finding that the case was "exceptional" because Realtime disregarded repeated indicators of potential invalidity. Realtime appealed, arguing that the district court improperly awarded attorney's fees. Realtime alleges that the district court based its determination that the case was exceptional on indicators that did not directly pertain to the '610 patent or Realtime's arguments. Realtime contends that the district court's basis for awarding attorney's fees was that the court found Realtime's position to be weak. Realtime disputes this by referencing how the district court denied a motion to dismiss under §101, by reasonably disputing DISH's assertion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and by relying on §101 orders from the Central District of California and the district court. DISH argues that the '610 patent was manifestly patent-ineligible, and that the district court had ample support from the record on such ineligibility to render the case "exceptional." DISH references "red flags" such as how other courts found Realtime's related patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 ineligible under §101, the ex parte reexamination finding that the '610 patent was invalid under §§102 and 103, and the declaration of DISH's expert.
Tuesday, April 2, 2024, 10:00 A.M.
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., No. 23-1169, Courtroom 201, Panel D
Amarin Pharma, Inc. ("Amarin") filed a patent infringement suit against Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. ("Hikma") alleging induced infringement. Amarin developed a drug ("Vascepa®") and patented two methods of using Vascepa®to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 9,700,537 ("the '537 patent") and 10,568,861 ("the '861 patent"). Amarin contends that Hikma developed a generic drug with a "skinny label" proscribing a specific use for the generic drug, which was approved by the FDA, and that Hikma encourages physicians to replace Vascepa®with Hikma's generic drug for treatments outside those described in the skinny label. The district court dismissed Amarin's complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that Hikma did not take "active steps" to encourage the infringement. In reaching its conclusion, the district court evaluated the skinny label and found that its listing of side effects was insufficient to constitute inducement. The district court then evaluated Hikma's public statements and found that the statements alone did not constitute inducement to infringe either. Amarin appealed, arguing that the district court failed to fully consider Hikma's public statements, including those on Hikma's website and press releases, as statements intended to convince the market to replace Vascepa®with Hikma's generic version for patented uses. Amarin also argues that the district court failed to consider the public statements in light of the skinny label, contending that the district court improperly considered both aspects in isolation. Hikma argues that it did not "actively induce" infringement, and Amarin failed to allege any active steps taken by Hikma that would suggest otherwise. Hikma acknowledges the public statements and information on the skinny label and argues that the district court was correct in concluding that neither contained any instructions to infringe the '537 or '861 patents.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
