Checkpoint Systems Inc. v. All-Tag Security S.A.
Addressing the exceptional case standard under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's award of attorneys' fees, costs and interest to a defendant, finding that the failure to test samples of the accused infringing products, and instead testing non-accused versions made in a different facility, did not make the litigation "objectively baseless." Checkpoint Systems Inc. v. All-Tag Security S.A., Case No. 12-1085 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 25, 2013) (Newman, J.).
Checkpoint Systems sued its competitor All-Tag Security for patent infringement on asserted claims directed to electronic theft-deterrent tags that may be disengaged by a store clerk at checkout. A key claim limitation was the requirement for a "throughhole," a feature that could be identified following a technical product analysis. Checkpoint's infringement allegations were specifically based on product made by All-Tag in Belgium. However, during the litigation, All-Tag identified that Checkpoint had examined only tags previously manufactured by All-Tag in Switzerland. Despite an opportunity to do so, Checkpoint never examined the Belgian-made tags.
In considering whether the Checkpoint's actions were "objectively baseless," the Court credited Checkpoint's argument that, upon the move from Switzerland, "the Belgian operation resumed manufacture within a week, on the same equipment." Further, there was no evidence that the Belgian products did not have a throughhole or that the Belgian products were materially different than the Swiss products, consistent with defendant's prior assertion that "it is undisputed that All-Tag S.A. purchased equipment and other assets from All-Tag A.G., and continued to manufacture the same resonant tags which were previously manufactured by All-Tag A.G."
All-Tag's CEO also testified that he "believed" that the manufacture of the defendant's products was made in accordance with All-Tag's own patents. Checkpoint's expert opined that such tags would infringe the asserted claims. Further, All-Tag's expert conceded that the Belgian products would have a throughhole if made in accordance with All-Tag's patents. The Court found that Checkpoint was entitled to rely on All-Tag's admission as an unqualified admission, because there was only a single, admittedly infringing embodiment described in All-Tag's patents as opposed to multiple embodiments, some of which might not infringe.
In view of the entire record, the Court could not find that the "infringement allegations [were] such that no reasonable litigant could reasonably expect success on the merits" and so did not undertake to determine whether "the litigation [was] brought in subjective bad faith" per the legal framework recently articulated by the Court in Highmark v. Allcare Health Mgmt. (See IP Update, Vol. 15, No. 9.)
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.
