United States: Troutman Sanders Federal Circuit Review – March 3, 2015

Each week, Troutman Sanders' Federal Circuit review summarizes the Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions from the prior week.

This week:

  • Delay Attributed to Applicant Conduct Under PTO Rule For PTA Calculations Does Not Require That Delay Actually Occurred
  • Actual Rendered Services Are Required for Service Mark To Be "Used in Commerce" under Lanham Act
  • Patentee May Not Recover Lost Profits of Its Licensees, Nor For Sales of Components Not Functionally Related to the Patented Invention

Delay Attributed to Applicant Conduct Under PTO Rule For PTA Calculations Does Not Require That Delay Actually Occurred.

Gilead Sciences, Inc., v. Michelle K. Lee, Deputy Director, USPTO, No. 2014-1159, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2828 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2015)(Wallach, J.).  Click Here for a copy of the opinion.

Gilead appealed from a decision granting summary judgment to the PTO on its calculation of the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) period for U.S. Pat. No. 8,148,374.  Gilead complained that the PTO improperly subtracted a period of applicant delay from the period of PTO delay when calculating the adjusted patent term.  Specifically, the appeal asked whether "filing a supplemental IDS after submitting a reply to a restriction requirement constitutes a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application" under § 154(b)(2)(C). The statute states, in part:

(i)  The period of adjustment of the term of a patent...shall be reduced by a period equal to the period of time during which the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application.

The statute authorizes the Director to "prescribe regulations establishing the circumstances that constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application." The PTO promulgated C.F.R. 1.704(c)(8), which in turn defined a failure to engage in such "reasonable efforts" to include "[s]ubmission of a supplemental reply or other paper, other than a supplemental reply or other paper expressly requested by the examiner, after a reply has been filed."  The district court concluded that, under Rule 1.704(c)(8), a supplemental Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), when filed after responding to a restriction requirement, was a supplemental paper not requested by the Examiner, and counted against the applicant for purposes of the PTA calculation.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected Gilead's argument that the statute permits a reduction in PTA only "in instances where the applicant's conduct 'actually delays the conclusion of prosecution.'" The court applied a two-step analysis under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and concluded (1) Congress did not directly address whether a failure to engage in reasonable efforts requires conduct that actually causes delay and (2) the PTO's construction of the statute was reasonable.

Consequently, Gilead's interpretation was neither supported by the plain language of the statute nor by evidence of legislative intent.  By the broad language of the statute, "Congress intended the PTO to employ its expertise in identifying applicant conduct demonstrating a lack of 'reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application." Therefore, "a reasonable interpretation of the statute is that Congress intended to sanction not only applicant conduct or behavior that results in actual delay, but also those having the potential to result in delay irrespective of whether such delay actually occurred." Because the PTO's interpretation of the statute was reasonable, the court affirmed.

Actual Rendered Services Are Required for Service Mark To Be "Used in Commerce" under Lanham Act .

David Couture v. PLAYDOM, Inc., No. 2013-1576, -1577, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3135 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2015) (Dyk, J.).  Click Here for a copy of the opinion.

Couture registered the service mark "PLAYDOM" pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a) in 2008 and submitted a "[s]creen capture of [a] website offering Entertainment Services in commerce" as evidence of use of the mark. At the same time, Couture created a website (playdominc.com) offering writing and production services for motion picture film, television, and new media.  However, no services were rendered to clients until 2010.

In 2009, Appellee registered for the identical mark and filed a petition to cancel the registration of Couture's mark, arguing that the registration was void ab initio for failure to use the mark in commerce as of the date of the application. The board granted the cancellation petition and Couture appealed.

To apply for registration under the Lanham Act, a mark must be "used in commerce," meaning a "bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark." For a service mark to be "used in commerce," the mark must be "used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services" and "the services are rendered." Here, the court concluded that, although services were advertised, there was "no evidence in the record" demonstrating that Couture actually rendered services to any customer before 2010.  Because Couture's mark was not "used in commerce" at the time of registration, the court affirmed.

The court also rejected Couture's argument that the Board should have allowed him to amend the basis of the application pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b)(1), to allege "a bona fide intention, under circumstances showing the good faith...to use a trademark in commerce." The court held that even though the rule provides procedures for substitution of a basis in an application, the rule "contemplates substitution during the pendency of an application, not after registration."

Patentee May Not Recover Lost Profits of Its Licensees, Nor For Sales of Components Not Functionally Related to the Patented Invention.

Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 2014-1480, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3133 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2015) (Dyk, J.).  Click Here for a copy of the opinion.

Warsaw sued Nuvasive for infringement of two patents related to spinal implants.  Nuvasive counterclaimed for infringement of a patent related to a surgical instrument.  At trial, the jury found that the asserted claims of Warsaw's '973 patent were not invalid (infringement was not disputed), the claims of Warsaw's '933 patent were infringed by Nuvasive under the doctrine of equivalents (validity not disputed), and the asserted claims of Nuvasive's '236 patent were infringed by Warsaw.  On the verdict form the jury awarded Warsaw $101 million in total damages, labeled "Lost Profit Damages (with royalty remainder)" and specified royalty rates for each patent.

Both parties filed motions for JMOL or a new trial.  Warsaw also moved for a permanent injunction against Nuvasive and for supplemental damages.  Nuvasive challenged the jury's calculation of damages owed to Warsaw.  All motions were denied by the trial court.  The motions relating to liability and the calculation of damages due to Warsaw were appealed.   The Federal Circuit affirmed all of the jury's findings on liability, but it vacated the damages award to Warsaw.

Warsaw does not practice its patented technologies.  Instead, it receives three income streams.  First, Warsaw sells "fixations" to Medtronic, and Medtronic includes them in spinal implant kits that embody Warsaw's patented technology.  Second, Warsaw collects royalties from M Proc and Deggendorf for products that practice the patented technology.  Third, Warsaw receives true-up payments from Medtronic.  (These are post-hoc payments, required for tax reasons, to ensure Warsaw receives fair-market-value for its bargain).  Warsaw's most significant income is from these true-up payments, by which  Medtronic effectively remits 95% of its profits on the patented technology to Warsaw.

First, Warsaw argued it was entitled to lost profits from convoyed sales.  Because of Nuvasive's infringement, Medtronic's sales of the patented technology were reduced, and Warsaw in turn lost profits on the sales of fixations to Medtronic.  The Federal Circuit disagreed, because Warsaw failed to show a sufficient functional relationship between the fixations and the patented technology to justify lost profits from convoyed sales.  Warsaw argued that the fixations completed Medtronic's kits for use in a fixation procedure, not that the fixations were functionally related to the patented implant itself.  The Federal Circuit characterized this relationship as one of convenience or business strategy, rather than a functional relationship.

Second, Warsaw argued that it was entitled to lost profits for royalties it did not recover from M Proc and Deggendorf.  Both companies were licensees who manufactured and sold the patented technology, and paid a royalty to Warsaw.  Warsaw acknowledged that it could not recover the profits lost by the licensees, but argued that it could recover for the royalties it would have collected, but for Nuvasive's infringement. The Federal Circuit again disagreed, ruling that a patentee can only claim lost profits for the lost sales of a product or service the patentee itself was selling, not the sales of other companies.  Thus, lost royalties cannot be "lost profits."

Third, Warsaw argued that reduced true-up payments caused by Nuvasive's infringement should be considered lost profits.   Warsaw argued that the lost true-up payments represented a royalty from Medtronic to Warsaw for sales of patented products.  However, it was unclear what payments were for the patented technologies and what payments were for management fees or licenses for other technologies.  The Federal Circuit again disagreed, because lost royalties are not lost profits.  Further, the evidence showed that the true-up payments were calculated on a company-by-company basis, rather than a technology-by-technology basis.  This made it impossible to determine the portion of any true-up payments that should be attributed to the patented technology.

For all of these reasons, the Federal Circuit vacated the lost profit awards.  It also questioned the jury's royalty rates in its "reasonable royalty" award and remanded for further consideration.  The verdict form contained only a lump-sum amount of damages and a royalty rate.  Critically, the jury did not define the period of time used to calculate the reasonable royalty.  In the absence of a meaningful royalty rate, the Federal Circuit instructed the district court to conduct a new trial on damages.


Each week, we succinctly summarize the preceding week of Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions. We provide the pertinent facts, issues, and holdings. Our Review allows you to keep abreast of the Federal Circuit's activities – important for everyone concerned with intellectual property. We welcome any feedback you may provide.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Ethan G. Ostroff
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McDermott Will & Emery
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McDermott Will & Emery
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions