Patent Contempt - A Changed Standard

Download IconDownload Print IconPrint

Patent Contempt - A Changed Standard

Publication

Authors

Related Solutions

By patenting their innovations, our clients increase the value of their intellectual property and enhance their ability to compete in the marketplace. We work with laboratory and research teams and R&D and product development groups to determine whether, when and where it is in our clients’ business and technical interests to seek patent protection. And we don’t just file patent applications. Drawing on our experience with patent litigation, corporate financings and technology transactions, we implement IP strategies that conserve resources, add measurable value and give our clients a cost-effective and commercially practical competitive edge.

We help clients obtain more than 750 US and foreign patents each year, covering innovations that span the technological spectrum, including aerospace, biochemistry, biotechnology, business methods, chemistry, computer science, fuel cells, genetics, high-speed data communication, integrated circuits, materials science, medical devices, nanotechnology, pharmaceuticals, semiconductor devices and processes, and software.

We also prepare and prosecute patent applications internationally under the Patent Cooperative Treaty and by working with a network of seasoned patent lawyers around the world. Our experience extends to appeals, interferences and opposition proceedings within the US Patent and Trademark Office, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the European Patent Office.

Clients trust us to protect their most important intellectual property matters.
Providing comprehensive solutions for the acquisition, enforcement and protection of IP.
We leverage technical knowledge, business acumen and legal experience to structure, prepare and negotiate innovative and effective technology-related agreements.
Comprehensive counseling for healthcare providers, insurers and the companies that supply them with products and services.
Advising life sciences innovators, investors and industry leaders on complex transactions, legal issues and business challenges.
A global team handling highly complex and sensitive matters in all aspects of litigation.
For companies in the life sciences sphere, licensing intellectual property and establishing strategic alliances are critical. WilmerHale’s experienced licensing lawyers shepherd biotech, pharmaceutical, healthcare and medical device clients of all sizes through the complex transactions that make their businesses possible, including a broad range of licensing, collaboration, strategic alliance and joint venture agreements. Our attorneys also excel at brokering manufacturing and supply agreements, contract research and development agreements, distribution and commercialization services agreements, and material transfer and confidentiality agreements. They also frequently represent life sciences clients as they license patents—often the foundations of their companies—from, and sponsor research at, leading academic institutions across the United States and Europe. Backed not only by their own experience but also the deep well of knowledge possessed by the firm’s patent, tax, antitrust and EU competition lawyers, our transactional attorneys are ready to handle even the most multifaceted matters. Our team helps clients protect their innovations, forge strategic alliances, and successfully navigate a complex, dynamic industry.
On April 20, 2011, the en banc Federal Circuit changed the standard for deciding when a contempt proceeding is the right way to evaluate whether a modified product continues to infringe. TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp., No. 2009-1374.

In 2006, a jury found that EchoStar had infringed a TiVo patent relating to digital video recorder (DVR) technology. The district court permanently enjoined further infringement and ordered EchoStar to disable the DVR functionality in the adjudged satellite receivers. EchoStar modified its software and continued to provide DVR services. In 2008, TiVo moved to enforce the injunction. After further proceedings, the district court found EchoStar in contempt.

After a divided panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed, the court granted en banc review, posing broad questions pertaining to the use of contempt proceedings.

After en banc review, the court held that the provision of the injunction requiring EchoStar to disable all DVR functionality in the adjudged receivers gave EchoStar clear notice of what it was required to do. Because EchoStar had fair notice, its failure to challenge the scope or substance of the disablement provision on direct appeal foreclosed raising any such challenge as a defense to enforcement in the contempt proceeding.

As to the anti-infringement portion of the injunction, the en banc court revised the standard for deciding when contempt proceedings may be used to evaluate a purported re-design. In KSM Fastening Systems v. H.A. Jones Co., 776 F.2d 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the court had established a two-step test. At step one, the district court was to determine whether contempt proceedings were appropriate by examining whether the adjudged and modified products were "more than colorably different," such that they raised "substantial open questions of infringement." If the modified product was not more than colorably different, then the district court could proceed to step two and determine whether the modified product still infringed, in which case a contempt finding was warranted. The en banc Federal Circuit declared this two-step framework "unworkable."

In its place, the court established the following framework. First, a district court may entertain a contempt proceeding based on "a detailed accusation from the injured party setting forth the alleged facts constituting the contempt." A decision to hold such a proceeding will be reviewed only for abuse of discretion.

Second, the adjudged infringer's good faith in attempting to design around the patent is irrelevant to whether its modifications are in fact significant enough to avoid violation of the injunction.

Third, "the party seeking to enforce the injunction must prove," by clear and convincing evidence, "both that the newly accused product is not more than colorably different from the product found to infringe and that the newly accused product actually infringes." In this inquiry, "[t]he primary question ... should be whether the newly accused device is so different from the product previously found to infringe that it raises 'a fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.'" Thus, "[w]here one or more of those elements [of the original product] previously found to infringe has been modified, or removed, the court must make an inquiry into whether that modification is significant." If it is, contempt is inappropriate and the claim of continued infringement must be pursued in a new proceeding.

Applying this new standard, the court remanded the case for further findings concerning whether EchoStar's modified DVRs are more than colorably different from its original devices and continue to infringe in relevant respects.

Judge Lourie wrote the court's en banc opinion, joined by Judges Newman, Mayer, Bryson, Moore, O'Malley, and Reyna. In partial dissent, Judge Dyk, joined by Chief Judge Rader and Judges Gajarsa, Linn, and Prost, would have held that the injunction's disablement provision was not sufficiently clear to be enforceable in contempt and that no remand was required to determine that EchoStar's modified software made its newly-accused receivers more than colorably different from those adjudged at trial.

Note: WilmerHale represents TiVo in this matter.

Authors

Notice

Unless you are an existing client, before communicating with WilmerHale by e-mail (or otherwise), please read the Disclaimer referenced by this link.(The Disclaimer is also accessible from the opening of this website). As noted therein, until you have received from us a written statement that we represent you in a particular manner (an "engagement letter") you should not send to us any confidential information about any such matter. After we have undertaken representation of you concerning a matter, you will be our client, and we may thereafter exchange confidential information freely.

Thank you for your interest in WilmerHale.

I Accept Cancel