By Amanda Liverzani
PTO’s Statutory Interpretation on Patent Term Adjustment Upheld
In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Michelle Lee, the Federal Circuit upheld the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) interpretation of a statute addressing the type of applicant conduct factored into a Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”). 2014-1159 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2015), slip op. at 16. Gilead argued that the PTO’s PTA calculation for U.S. Patent No. 8,148,374 was based on an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of § 154(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Patent Act, which states that a PTA for delay caused by the PTO is to be offset by the time “the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application.” Id. at 8 (quoting § 154(b)(2)(C)). The court rejected Gilead’s argument that, contrary to the PTO’s interpretation, the statute should be read only to include applicant conduct that actually delays prosecution. Applying the Chevron two-step framework, the court concluded that the PTO’s interpretation was entitled to deference because Congress did not specifically address whether an applicant’s failure to engage in reasonable efforts need actually cause delay, id. at 13, and that the PTO’s interpretation was permissible given the broad language of the statute, id. at 13-14. A timeline of the relevant patent prosecution and further explanation of the court’s decision are available at PatentlyO.
Federal Circuit Affirms Garmin Fitness Watches Do Not Infringe on Pacing Patent
The Federal Circuit upheld a district court decision that Garmin’s GPS fitness watches do not infringe on a patent held by Pacing Technologies in Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc., 2014-1396 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2015). The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,101,843 (“the ‘843 patent”), claims a method for pacing users during activities like running or cycling “by providing the user with a tempo . . . corresponding to the user’s desired pace.” Slip op. at 2. On appeal, the court considered whether the patent claims were limited to devices that convey pace to the user through a play back mechanism such as a song or flashing lights. Id. at 4. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s finding that claims of the ‘843 patent were limited to devices with play back features, id. at 5, and subsequently held that Garmin’s fitness watches did not infringe on Pacing Technologies’ patent, id. at 10. For additional commentary see Law360, the National Law Review, and PatentlyO.
Online Shopping Cart Patents Deemed Invalid in Infringement Action Against Victoria’s Secret and Avon
Soverain Software’s patent claims directed to online shopping carts were found invalid due to issue preclusion by the Federal Circuit, reversing the decision of the Eastern District of Texas in an infringement action against Victoria’s Secret and Avon. Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, Avon Products, Inc., 2012-1649, 2012-1650 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2015), slip op. at 2. The patents involved in the case, U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314 and U.S. Patent No. 5,909,492, were previously found invalid by the Federal Circuit in Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., 705 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Id. The court rejected Soverain’s argument that issue preclusion should not apply in the instant action because Soverain did not have full and fair opportunity to litigate. Id. at 6-14. Further coverage of the decision and related litigation involving shopping cart patents is available at Ars Technica, IPWatchdog, and Law360.