Non-Infringement Decision on Hospital Bed Patents Reversed for Erroneous Claim Construction
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 13-1450 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2014) reversed the Southern District of Indiana’s decision that Stryker Corp. did not infringe on hospital bed patents held by Hill-Rom Services Inc., holding that the district court’s judgment was based on erroneous claim construction. The patents at issue (U.S. Patent #5,699,038, #6,147,592, and #7,538,659) are related to a system and method for remotely monitoring and controlling hospital beds. Hill-Rom Services, at 1. The Federal Circuit held that the district court’s construction of the term “datalink” as exclusively referring to a wired connection is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, which may also include wireless connections. Id. at 4. Consequently, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. at 24. An analysis of the decision is available at Law360.
Patents for Eyelash Growth Treatment Invalidated Based on Obviousness
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that two patents relating to the eyelash growth treatment Latisse were invalid in Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 13-1245 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2014). A group of pharmaceutical manufacturers appealed the Middle District of North Carolina’s decision that they had infringed upon patents held by Allergan and Duke University, covering the use of 0.03% bimatoprost ophthalmic solution to treat eyelash hypotrichosis (U.S. Patents #7,388,029 and #7,351,404), as well as an injunction issued by the district court prohibiting manufacturing of generic Latisse. Allergan, at 3. The Federal Circuit reversed the finding of infringement and vacated the injunction, holding that while the district court did not err on claim construction, id. at 8, it was incorrect in finding that the patents met the requirement of non-obviousness, id. at 24 and 32. Bloomberg, Law360, and Patently-O provide discussions of the decision.
Constitutionality of “First-Inventor-to-File” Regime Still Undecided
In MadStad Engineering, Inc. v. USPTO, No. 12-1511 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined to rule on the constitutionality of the “first-inventor-to-file” principle implemented by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, instead affirming a Florida district court’s decision that the plaintiff MadStad Engineering, Inc. (“MadStad”) lacked standing to bring suit. MadStad argued that the enacted rule, which provides for the issuance of patents to the first person to file a patent application rather than the first person to invent, is inconsistent with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. MadStad, at 3. The Federal Circuit held that MadStad lacked standing to bring suit because it failed to prove injury or a substantial risk of injury, avoiding taking a position on the constitutional question. Id. at 12–27. For additional commentary on the decision see Patently-O and Law360.