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, September 3, 2024, 10:00 A.M.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. 23-1636, Courtroom 402, Panel B
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review of all claims of Centripetal Networks, LLC's U.S. Patent No. 10,530,903. The '903 patent relates to methods for "correlating packets in communications networks", which can be used to identify and prevent disguised, malicious communications. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted the IPR, with one APJ dissenting from the decision to institute. The Board then issued a final written decision ("FWD"), finding none of the challenged claims were shown to be unpatentable for obviousness.
Palo Alto now appeals, arguing that the Board erred in its obviousness analysis. It first argues that the Board committed error by considering the asserted prior art references in isolation, rather than in combination. Palo Alto also argues that the Board's analysis was impermissibly narrow and rigid because it required a "bridge" connecting the two primary prior art references. Centripetal defends the Board's decision and argues that it did not impermissibly consider prior art references in isolation or apply an impermissibly narrow and rigid obviousness analysis.
Tuesday, September 3, 2024, 10:00 A.M.
United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., No. 24-1658, Courtroom 203, Panel C
United Therapeutics Corporation filed an ANDA suit in the District of Delaware against Liquidia Technologies, Inc., asserting that Liquidia's proposed product would infringe United Therapeutics' U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793. The '793 patent is listed in the Orange Book for Tyvaso®, a drug for treatment of certain forms of pulmonary hypertension. Liquidia filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of the '793 patent. The Board instituted and later issued a FWD finding that all of the challenged claims of the '793 patent were unpatentable as obvious. United Therapeutics appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed.
After the Board issued the FWD but before it was affirmed on appeal, the district court found that the claims were not invalid under § 112 and that Liquidia's proposed product infringed the '793 patent. With this finding, the district court enjoined "any final approval by the FDA of Liquidia's" proposed product until after the '793 patent expires. Liquidia appealed that decision, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit; Liquidia's subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
Liquidia then filed a Rule 60(b) motion for post-judgment relief with the district court to lift the injunction in light of the Board's invalidation of the claims of the '793 patent. The district court granted this motion. United Therapeutics now appeals.
On appeal, United Therapeutics argues that lifting the injunction was a violation of the statutory mandate that injunctive relief be provided when an Orange Book patent is infringed. It further argues that the district court erred in relying on issue preclusion for several reasons. First, United Therapeutics argues that issue preclusion cannot support overturning a final judgment, which has no further appellate review available, based on a later decision that is still subject to appellate review. It further argues that issue preclusion requires identical issues, and thus cannot apply here where the judgments in question rely on § 103 and § 112, respectively. Finally, United Therapeutics argues that Rule 60(b) does not provide a court with discretion to disturb a mandatory statutory relief prior to cancellation of the patent.
In response, Liquidia argues first that the Board's decision which was affirmed on appeal, invalidated the '793 patent, precluding it from serving as the foundation for a statutory injunction. Liquidia further argues that lifting the injunction was within in the district court's discretion because modifying a prospective remedy judgment is always within its discretion. Finally, Liquidia argues that Congress did not provide that such injunctions require the claims to be cancelled under § 318 for lifting the injunction to have been proper.
Thursday, September 5, 2024, 10:00 A.M.
Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC v. Asus Computer International, No. 22-1769, Courtroom 201, Panel F
Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against Asus Computer International alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,724,435. The '435 patent related to "[a] method for independently controlling hue or saturation of individual colors in a real time digital video image." A jury found that Asus induced infringement of Lone Star's '435 patent and awarded damages. The district court set aside the original damages award, but it did not take issue with the damages awarded following a second trial on damages.
Asus now appeals, first arguing that the judgment should be vacated because Lone Start did not establish ownership of the '435 patent and thus lacks standing. It contends that Lone Star did not present written evidence of ownership at trial and thus failed to establish patent ownership. Asus argues that the district court's consideration of a declaration and documents submitted after trial and its ultimate finding that Lone Star had standing were wrong. Asus also argues that, if the judgment is not vacated for lack of standing, the damages award should be reduced or vacated because it was based on speculation as to how many products were used to allegedly infringe and because non-accused products were included in the damages award. Finally, Asus raises claim construction issues.
Lone Star argues that Asus waived its standing challenge by not raising it as a contested issue at trial. It further asserts that even if Asus had raised standing sooner, Lone Star is the presumed owner based on the chain of title of ownership recorded with the USPTO, which Asus failed to sufficiently rebut. Lone Star further argues that the jury's damages award should not be reduced or vacated because there was substantial evidence offered to justify the extent of the infringement and non-accused products were not included in determining the award. Finally, Lone Star argues that the claim construction was proper, and that Asus forfeited one of its claim construction arguments by failing to raise it at the district court.
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.