Dismissal of Suit for Violation of False Marketing Affirmed Due to Lack of Standing after Elimination of qui tam Provision
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers Group, Inc., 13-1180 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2014) affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s decision to dismiss the suit for lack of standing, holding that after elimination of the qui tam provision of the false-marketing statute by the America Invents Act (“AIA”), the pro se plaintiff-appellant no longer had standing in the pending litigation. Stauffer at 14. The AIA “made three significant changes to the false-marketing statute that affected Mr. Stauffer’s claim,” the most influential of which was the elimination of the statute’s qui tam provision making it so that “only a ‘person who has suffered a competitive injury’ may bring a claim.” Id. at 3 (citing AIA § 16(b)(2)). Mr. Stauffer argued that, first, the retroactive application of the AIA amendments constituted a mass pardon which Congress could not grant, and, second, that the retroactive amendments violated the common-law principle of prohibiting use of a pardon to negate theaction once it has begun, id. at 7, but the Federal Circuit disagreed on both points, id. at 11–12. Milbank provides an in-depth discussion of the case.
Summary Judgment Affirmed for Subject Matter Ineligibility of Claims for Infringement of “Device Profile” Generation and Use
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Digitech Technologies v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 13-1600 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2014) affirmed the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s grant of summary judgment to several defendants, concluding that the device profile in the ’415 patent does not fall within any category of eligible subject matter. Digitech Technologies at 7. The patent at issue (U.S. Patent #6,128,415) covers “the generation and use of an ‘improved device profile’ that describes spatial and color properties of a devise within a digital image processing system.” Id. at 5. Consistent with the findings of the District Court, the Federal Circuit held that under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a device profile did not fall within any eligible categories of subject matter because it was not tangible or physical. Id. at 7. Additionally, the Federal Circuit applied the recent Supreme Court ruling in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. ___, No. 13-298 (June 19, 2014), which concluded that fundamental concepts are by themselves ineligible abstract ideas. Id. at 10. Law360 provides coverage of the case.