Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Dinosaur Tail Tip Tale
WOW! 6 News, a Lawrence, KS, television station, did a story on the tip of befeathered dinosaur tail discovered embalmed in amber. Although my biology is long out of date, they interviewed me anyway. Fortunately, the reporter, Dan Garrett, also interviewed a real palaeontologist. Law or no law, I have to admit being associated with anything dinosaurian is super cool.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Patients Lose Patience
Although December 13, 2016, would not seem the most propitious of dates, it may go down as an important one in the history of United States drug and medical device law. Today, President Barack Obama signed into law the "21st Century Cures Act", which substantially amends the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act ("FDCA") in response, at least in part, to a growing chorus of criticism by patient advocates demanding faster approvals of, and access to, new drugs and medical devices. Among the highlights are formal recognition by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") of "patient experience" data as part of the drug approval process, accelerated decisions on drug approvals, reevaluation of clinical trial design (including consideration of "real world evidence"), enhanced access by patients to information on experimental drugs, accelerated approvals for regenerative medicines (including, presumably, stem cell therapies), and accelerated approvals for medical devices. The 21st Century Cures Act is one of the most substantial amendments to be made to the FDCA in years. It may prove one of President Obama's greatest legislative legacies, with wide-ranging and long-lasting effects on medicine and health.
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Design Patents Totalled
The United States ("U.S.") Patent Act has long included a special damages provision that applies only to design patents. Under the relevant part of 35 U.S.C. §289 (tellingly-entitled "Additional remedy for infringement of design patent"),
Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit...[emphasis added]
In the epic patent litigation royale between Apple Inc. ("Apple") and Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. et al ("Samsung"), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") interpreted §289 to mean that Samsung Electronic Company, Ltd., owed Apple, Inc., profits from entire devices, even where the Apple design patents Samsung was found to have infringed claimed only portions of the infringing devices (that is, smartphones) Samsung sold.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in its decision published on December 6, 2017. Writing for the unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor parsed the meaning of "article of manufacture" to encompass either an entire device or a mere fraction of it, explaining
the term “article of manufacture” is broad enough to encompass both a product sold to a consumer as well as a component of that product. A component of a product, no less than the product itself, is a thing made by hand or machine. That a component may be integrated into a larger product, in other words, does not put it outside the category of articles of manufacture.
Applying this logic, she reasoned that "total profit" should be assessed from only that portion of an article of manufacture claimed in an infringed design patent. Since most modern electronic devices are composed of dozens or hundreds of distinct parts, many of which could be individually-claimed in distinct design patents, the practical implication of this decision will most likely be a substantial decrease in the "total profit" Samsung will owe Apple for design patent infringement.
A broader implication may be a reevaluation of the value of design patents, whose numbers have been climbing rapidly (applications increased by almost 800% from 1963 to 2015). Now that "total profits" has a totally-new denominator, applying for, acquiring, and maintaining design patents may have become markedly less desirable.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)