Recent CAFC Decisions Signal Sea Change In Patent Litigation

Recent CAFC Decisions Signal Sea Change In Patent Litigation 6 comments

On September 17th and September 18th, The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released two monumental decisions concerning patent right holders and the rights they have against those that infringe their intellectual property.

The first, relates to the ability of patent holders to secure injunctions against infringers in disputes prior to final determination of the matter. Thus this increases the leverage of the patent holder to effect a timely and fair settlement.

Here was the synopsis of the Apple v. Samsung case:

(click to enlarge)

This right, which is recognized in other jursidictions such as Brazil, allows for a company to obtain preliminary injunction against an alleged patent infringer.

In the case of Vringo v. ZTE this ability to secure an injunction carries some teeth to it as evidenced by this press release by Vringo:

(click to enlarge)

The second decision in the Federal Circuit was released today.

In SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products the Federal Circuit convened en banc to resolve whether laches remains a defence to legal relief in patent infringment suits.

www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1564.Opinion.9-16-2015.1.PDF

Laches is unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim... "in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party" that serves as a defence to an equitable remedy for the plaintiff.

-Wiki

The court summarized their findings with this key sentence:

"We emphasize that equitable principles apply whenever an accused infringer seeks to use laches to bar ongoing relief."

Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry VII to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law.

(from Wiki)

As such the Court concluded as follows:

(click to enlarge)

What this means is that should an entity be found to have infringed a patent holder's right, the infringer is responsible for royalties from date of infringement.

This clarification of patent law will provide guidance to parties who are in patent disputes and hopefully will effect more settlements as a result of the possibility of both injunctions and royalty arrears being awarded by Courts for current and past infringement.

The takeaway from these decisions is how the courts are shifting towards protection of the patent-right holder after a long period of being tough on patent infringment (aka "troll") cases.

The right of a creator to protect and benefit from their creation is at the core of any modern society and now the Courts are realizing that they have to be the ones to enforce such rights.