Category Archives: Uncategorized

“AND” Can Mean “OR” Depending on the Context

Posted on by

In Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., [2021-1634, 2021-1691] (May 20, 2022) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Microsoft’s post-judgment challenges to a $7 million damage award for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,885,981, and reversed the district court’s denial of prejudgment interest.

The ’981 patent addresses the creation of user interfaces that permit users to interact with data in relational databases. One of the issues was whether the claim required the automatic generation of an end user interface. The word automatic did not appear on the body of the claim, but the preamble stated that the method involved a “processor for automatically generating and end-user interface.”

Microsoft moved for summary judgment, arguing that that the phrase “automatically
generating” found in the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, and means that “no human labor required,” and thus Microsoft product does not infringe. Microsoft argued that the district court erred in failing to clarify the reach of the “automatically” requirement for the jury, warranting a new trial under O2 Micro because a clarification could reasonably have led the jury to a different verdict. However, the Federal Circuit held that Microsoft failed to preserve its O2 Micro challenge.

The Federal Circuit noted that in the original Markman proceeding, the parties did
not request a construction of the word “automatically” or raise an issue of the scope of the “automatically generating” requirement. During the motion for summary judgment
briefing, Microsoft described the “human labor” involved in use of Dynamic Data, and it
asserted a need for a claim construction under O2 Micro, but it said only that there was “a fundamental legal dispute as to the meaning of “automatic” in the claims, it never clearly said that, apart from what “automatic” means, a construction was needed specifying what functions had to be automatic, i.e., the scope of the “automatically generating” requirement. Further, Microsoft never offered the district court a formulation of such a claim construction resolving that scope issue, including at the at the pre-trial hearing.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Microsoft’s argument, presented for the first time on appeal, that “automatically generating” should be construed broadly to require some defined set of steps beyond those recited by the claims in (a), (b), and (c) to be performed automatically. Microsoft never proposed such a construction to the district court.

Microsoft’s final argument was that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding infringement, but the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court correctly explained, the jury reasonably that the manual step identified by Microsoft were not part of the claim requirement that were required to be performed automatically.

Finding that Microsoft failed to establish that the district court erred in its claim construction or that the jury’s verdict was not supported by substantial evidence, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding that the accused processes come within the “automatically generating” limitation.

Microsoft also argued that the district court erred in the post-trial ruling when it concluded that “and” means “and/or,” contending that the phrase should be given the conjunctive
meaning, so that the client application (constituting the end-user interface) must integrate into each of the individual mode displays (for creating, retrieving, updating, and deleting) all three of the “processes for representing, navigating, and managing said relationships across tables.” The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s construction, noting that a claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support. The Federal Circuit noted that in the sole embodiment in the patent, a “retrieve” display lacks a “managing” process. The the Federal Circuit said that “and” must be construed as “and/or” so that the claim would cover the only disclosed embodiment.

The Federal Circuit recognized that it cannot redraft claims whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity, or to cause them to encompass the sole described embodiment, it said that that is not what it was doing here. The Court said where there is “only one reasonable construction,” it has recognized that, in certain contexts, the word “and” can reasonably be understood to denote alternatives, rather than conjunctive requirements.

Finally, the Federal Circuit addressed the denial of prejudgment interest. The district court provided two rationales for denying prejudgment interest to Kaufman: first, that the jury
verdict “subsumed interest,” and second, that Mr. Kaufman was responsible for “undue delay” in bringing the lawsuit, causing prejudice to Microsoft. The Federal Circuit said that the jury verdict cannot reasonably be understood to include interest, noting there was no testimony about how the interest would be calculated. The Federal Circuit also said that the district court also erred in finding Kaufman was responsible for undue delay justifying the denial of prejudgment interest. The Federal Circuit said that the fact that Mr. Kaufman
did not sue for five years after he became aware of Microsoft’s potential infringement does not alone justify a finding of undue delay. The Federal Circuit said that Microsoft presented
no evidence as to why Kaufman’s delay was undue.

Not so fast — Letters to Customers + Customer Litigation Required More Analysis Before Dismissing a DJ Action

Posted on by

In Mitek Systems, Inc., v. United States Automobile Association, [2021-1989] (May 20, 2022), the Federal Circuit affirmed a California district court decision transferring Mitek’s DJ action to Texas, and vacated the Texas District Court’s dismissal of the DJ action, and remanded.

USAA owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,699,779, 9,336,517, 8,977,571, and 9,818,090, all of which address the use of a mobile device to capture an image of a bank check and to transmit it for deposit. After more than 1000 notice letters to its clients, and an infringement trial against one of its customers, Mitek filed a declaratory judgment action against USAA in the Northern District of California.

USAA moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or for dismissal based on the discretion granted to the district court by the Declaratory Judgment Act. In the alternative, USAA sought transfer to the Eastern District of Texas. The California district court granted USAA’s motion to transfer the declaratory-judgment action to the Eastern District of Texas, without ruling on the motion to dismiss, After transfer of the case, the Texas court took up the motion to dismiss, granting it because there was
no case or controversy between the parties. The Court determined the neither the customer litigation, nor the cease and desist letters were sufficient to support jurisdiction, and even if they did, the court would exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction.

The Federal Circuit found the district court’s analysis incomplete, among other things no considering contributory and inducement of infringement. The Federal Circuit also found that the district courts analysis under 12(b)(1) failed to distinguish between a facial or a factual challenge.

The Federal Circuit said that on remand the district court’s primary task regarding Mitek’s first asserted basis for establishing a case or controversy will be to ascertain the alleged role of the Mitek technology in the banks’ applications and the alleged role that the Mitek technology plays in infringement claims. Making those core determinations, and considering any other pertinent issues, will supply a fuller basis for the bottom-line assessment of Mitek’s first theory of Article III jurisdiction.

With respect to Mitek’s alternative basis for jurisdiction the USAA’s letters to Mitek customers combined with subsequent indemnification demands — the Federal Circuit also found the district court analysis inadequate. The district court observed that Mitek had submitted only one letter with the Complaint — a letter that came from USAA’s licensing counsel and that did not threaten litigation, include claim charts for the patents-in-suit,
or identify Mitek or particular products as infringing. The Federal Circuit concluded that
the allegations in Mitek’s complaint concerning USAA’s letter campaign and the attached example letter, viewed in light of the Wells Fargo litigation, were sufficient to show a controversy between USAA and Mitek’s customers who received letters.

The Federal Circuit said that a communication from a patent owner to another party, merely identifying its patent and the other party’s product line, without more, does not suffice, but the Court said that here, there is just enough “more.” Given the additional detail in the claim and the customer suit against Wells Fargo, the Federal Circuit said under the totality of the circumstances, there is enough for Mitek’s other customers to reasonably interpret USAA’s actions as an implicit assertion of infringement based on incorporation of Mitek technology. As to the showing of a demand for an indemnity, the Federal Circuit said that this was met too, and that it was not necessary that Mitek further concede liability under the indemnity obligation.

On remand, the Federal Circuit instructed the district court should first determine which Rule
12(b)(1) framework to apply, i.e., determine whether USAA mounted a factual attack on the indemnity allegations of Mitek’s complaint. If it finds that USAA has not mounted a factual attack, the court must closely analyze the relevant indemnity allegations, to determine whether they suffice. If it finds that USAA has mounted a factual attack, the district court must decide how to proceed, including whether the parties should have the opportunity to present additional evidence, and to address issues concerning post-complaint events.

Regarding the discretionary decision to dismiss, the Federal Circuit said that where a discretionary decision rests on an inadequate explanation and might well be different without the deficiencies, it may vacate the decision and remand for reconsideration. In any event, there must be well-founded reasons for declining to entertain a declaratory judgment action. The Federal Circuit said that the district court did not give reasons independent of its reasons for its jurisdictional dismissal, which it held to be deficient in various respects, and cannot stand. The Federal Circuit vacated the discretionary dismissal.

PTAB Should Have Resolved Dispute Among Authors of a Reference to Determine Whether They All Made Contributions to the Ultimately Claimed Subject Matter

Posted on by

In Google LLC, v. IPA Technologies Inc, [2021-1179, 2021-1180, 2021-1185] (May 19, 2022), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB decision that Google had not shown the challenged claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,851,115 and 7,069,560 to be unpatentable.

During the prosecution of the ’115 patent, various claims were rejected based on the Martin reference, which the examiner identified as being prior art. In response, SRI contested the prior art status of the reference by submitting inventor declarations by Martin and Cheyer under 37 C.F.R. §1.132, asserting that Dr. Moran was “not a co-inventor of the subject matter described in the subject matter disclosed and claimed in the instant application[s].”
If Dr. Moran was not a co-inventor of the Martin reference, the Martin reference was not prior art because it was made by the same inventive entity as the ’115 and ’560 patents and not “by others.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (pre-AIA).1 After receiving the declarations, the examiner withdrew the rejections based on the Martin reference and continued examining the applications. The patents were granted and ultimately assigned to appellee IPA
Technologies, Inc. (“IPA”).

Google petitioned the Board for inter partes review of various claims of the ’115 and ’560 patents, relying the same Martin reference, and contending that the Martin reference was prior art as work “by others” because it described the work of an inventive entity (Martin,
Cheyer and Dr. Moran) different from the inventive entity of the challenged patents (Martin and Cheyer). The Board instituted IPR, but concluded that Google had not provided sufficient support that Moran was a co-inventor, and dismissed the Petition. On appeal, Google argued that the Board improperly put the burden on Google to provide that the Martin reference had a different inventive entity than the challenged patents.

The Federal Circuit noted that the term “burden of proof” has been used to describe two distinct concepts: the burden of persuasion and the burden of production. The burden of persuasion is “the ultimate burden assigned to a party who must prove something to a specified degree of certainty.” In an IPR, “the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner
to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In contrast, the burden of production, or “going forward with evidence,” is a shifting one, “the allocation of which depends on where in the process of trial the issue arises.” The burden of production may be met either by “producing additional evidence” or by “presenting persuasive argument based on new evidence or evidence already of record.”

The Federal Circuit said that Google, as the petitioner, had the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence and this burden never shifted. It found no error with the Board’s requiring that Google establish the Martin reference was prior art “by another” by showing that Dr. Moran made a significant enough contribution to the portions relied on to invalidate the challenged patents to qualify as a joint inventor of those portions.

Turning to the question of whether Google satisfied its burden, the Federal Circuit said that it is evident that Dr. Moran made general technical contributions to the project, but that that was not the relevant inquiry. To be a joint inventor of the Martin reference, Dr. Moran must have made an inventive contribution to the portions of the reference relied upon and relevant to establishing obviousness. The Federal Circuit said that the testimony of Dr. Moran, if credited, might well establish that he was a co-inventor of the particular portions of the Martin reference relied on by Google. The Federal Circuit found, however, that the Board
did not complete the full Duncan analysis. Instead, it appeared to the Federal Circuit that the Board concluded that Dr. Moran’s testimony was insufficiently corroborated.

The Federal Circuit found that although coauthorship does not presumptively make a co-author a coinventor, it is significant corroborating evidence that a co-author contributed to the invention. Thus, the Federal Circuit said, the issue was not lack of corroboration for
Dr. Moran’s testimony, but rather whether his testimony should ultimately be credited over Cheyer and Martin’s conflicting testimony during the IPR proceedings. The Federal Circuit said that instead of resolving the conflicts, the Board stated that it found the testimony of Dr. Moran, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cheyer credible. The Federal Circuit thus vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded,

Happy Mother’s Day 2022

Posted on by

U.S. Patent No. 1,792,572 discloses a container for use in on one of the “nineteen or more recognized holidays, which are featured by retailers dealing in candy, flowers, favors, etc.,” including Mother’s Day, as is clear from the above image,

Dashed Lines Broaden the Scope of a Design Patent, But this is Ridiculous

Posted on by

On September 14, 2021, U.S. Patent No. D930702, on a Display Screen Portion with Animated Graphical User Interface, issued to Wepay Global Payments LLC. The design patent covers two embodiments: The first embodiment consists of Figs. 1 and 2:

The second embodiment consists of Figs. 3 – 5:

Within weeks of the patent issuance Wepay sued PNC Bank NA. A month later Wepay sued PayPal Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Last month Wepay sued JPMorgan Chase Bank NA and Bank of America NA. Then last week, Wepay sued Apple (6:22-cv-00223 in W.D.Texas), Amazon (1:22-cv-01061 in N.D. Ill), Tesla (W.D. Texas), Walmart Stores Inc (1:22-cv-01062 in N.D. Ill.))., and McDonald’s Corp. (1:22-cv-01064 in N.D. Ill.)

With the patent’s liberal use of dashed lines, it appears that Figs. 1 and 3 cover any screen with the a QR code finder pattern – the three black squares in three corners of the QR code. Figs. 2 and 5 cover any screen with the figure “$0.00.” Fig. 4, oddly enough, covers any screen, with or without content.. Since QR codes have been around since 1994, and dollar signs even longer — since the late 18th century, it seems unlikely that this pattern did not appear on an apps display before the September 3, 2020, filing date of the ‘702 patent.

Wepay is asserting the ‘702 to its broadest extent. Looking, for example at the complaint against Apple,

Weoay asserts that Fig. 3 covers the
appearance of a QR icon anywhere on a screen.
Wepay asserts that Fig. 4 covers any screen.
Wepay asserts that Fig. 5 covers the appearance
of any screen with the text “$0.00”

It is hard to fathom what is ornamental about the three squares of a QR code, or the dollar sign or zeros. It is also hard to imagine that if the defendants are infringing now, that they were not infringing before the patent was filed, thus invalidating the patent.

Give the tremendous resources of the defendants, it is difficult to imagine that this patent will be found valid and infringe, we can only hope they don’t destroy the design patent system in the process.

Black Inventors and Their Inventions

Posted on by

February is Black History Month, honoring the triumphs and struggles of African Americans throughout U.S. history. Among these triumphs are the inventions black inventors have contributed, many of which were not recognized with a patent because the Patent Acts of 1793 and 1836 barred slaves from obtaining patents because they were not considered citizens. It was not until the Patent Act of 1870 that “any person or persons” having discovered or invented any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter could apply for and obtain a patent. The breadth and importance of inventions contributed by black inventors is one of the best examples of the value of diversity:

Dry Cleaning

Most historians agree that the first U.S. patent that issued to a black inventor was U.S. Patent No. X3306, issued to Thomas L.  Jennings over two hundred years ago on March 3, 1821, on dry scouring — a method of dry cleaning.

Planter

The second patent that issued to a black inventor was U.S. Patent No. 8447X, issued to Henry Blair (inventor) – Wikipedia on a (Corn) Seed Planter. He also received U.S. Patent No. 15 on a Corn Planter.

Locomotive Lubricators

Elijah McCoy, was a prolific inventor. Among his 57 U.S. patents was U.S. Patent No. 129843 for Improvements in Lubricators for Steam-Engines, on July 28, 1872. It is reputed that his invention was so often duplicated, that people began asking for the “real McCoy.”

Uses for Peanuts

George Washington Carver was a famous scientist and prolific inventors, although he only patented two of his inventions, U.S. Patent 1,522,176, on Cosmetic and Process of Producing the Same, and U.S. Patent 1,632,365, on Process of Producing Paints and Stains.

amd

PTO Examiners are Entitled to Appropriate Deference

Posted on by

In Nature Simulation Systems Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc., [2020-2257](January 27, 2022), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgement that U.S. Patent Nos. 10,120,961 and 10,109,105, both entitled
“Method for Immediate Boolean Operations Using Geometric Facets” were not invalid for indefiniteness.

The patents are for data structures and algorithms for the claimed method, which is described as a modification of a the Watson method a Boolean operation published in 1981 for analyzing and representing three-dimensional geometric shapes. There were two claim elements that the district court determined made the claims indefinite: “searching neighboring triangles of the last triangle pair that holds the last intersection point”; and “modified Watson method.” The district court held the claims indefinite based on the “unanswered questions” that were suggested by Autodesk’s expert.

In finding the claims indefinite, the district court declined to consider information in the specification that was not included in the claims. The Federal Circuit found that the district court misperceived the function of patent claims. The Federal Circuit also found that the applicant, in consultation with the examiner, amended the claim to add the disputed language. The Federal Circuit noted that the district court gave no weight to the prosecution history showing the resolution of indefiniteness by adding the designated technologic limitations to the claims. The court did not discuss the Examiner’s Amendment, and held
that since Dr. Aliaga’s questions were not answered, the claims are invalid.

The Federal Circuit said that “[a]ctions by PTO examiners are entitled to appropriate deference as official agency actions, for the examiners are deemed to be experienced in the relevant technology as well as the statutory requirements for patentability.” The Federal Circuit added “[t]he subject matter herein is an improvement on the known Watson and Delaunay methods, and partakes of known usages for established technologies. Precedent teaches that when ‘the general approach was sufficiently
well established in the art and referenced in the patent’ this ‘render[ed] the claims not indefinite.’”

The Federal Circuit concluded that ‘[I]ndefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 was not established as a matter of law,” and reversed the district court.

Silence is not only Golden, it is a Written Description, if the Skilled Artisan Would Understand it that Way

Posted on by

In Novaritis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., [2021-1070](January 3, 2021) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 on a treatment for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (“RRMS”), is not invalid and that HEC’s Abbreviated New Drug Application infringes.

The’405 patent claimed a daily dosage of fingolimod “absent an immediately preceding loading dose,” which HEC challenged as lacking written description. The district court found sufficient written description in the EAE model and the Prophetic Trial, neither of which recited a loading dose.

On appeal, HEC attacked the expert testimony underlying the district court’s determination that the EAE experiment describes a 0.5 mg daily human dose as “undisclosed mathematical sleights of hand.” The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting a disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba. The disclosure need only clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. The Federal Circuit said that to accept HEC’s argument would require it to ignore the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the art and require literal description of every limitation, in violation of our precedent. The Federal Circuit found no clear error in the
district court’s reliance on expert testimony in finding description of the 0.5 mg daily human dose in the EAE experiment results.

The Federal Circuit also rejected HEC’s challenge to the negative limitation “absent an immediately preceding loading dose.” The Federal Circuit began by noting that it was well established that there is no “new and heightened standard for negative claim limitations.” Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Court said that negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Adding that a specification that describes a reason to exclude the relevant negative limitation is but one way in which the written description requirement may be met. The Federal Circuit said that the written description requirement
is satisfied where the essence of the original disclosure conveys the necessary information—regardless
of how it conveys such information, and regardless of whether the disclosure’s words are open to different interpretations.

The Federal Circuit pointed to expert testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the examples to exclude a loading does, so the specification’s apparent silence provided adequate written description of the negative limitation. The Court concluded that written description in this case, as in all cases, is a factual issue. In deciding that the district court did not clearly err in finding written description for the negative limitation in the ’405 patent, the court said that it was not establishing a new legal
standard that silence is disclosure. The Federal Circuit said that it was merely holding that on the record before it, the district court did not clearly err in finding that a skilled artisan would read the ’405 patent’s disclosure to describe the “absent an immediately preceding loading dose” negative limitation.

The Proper Claim Construction of a Term is Not Necessarily the Sum of its Parts

Posted on by

In Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., [2020-1664] (December 28, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the final written decision of the originally challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,229,043, but vacated and remanded as to the substitute claims.

The Federal Circuit addressed first considered the phrase “radio frequency input signal” in ’043 patent claims 17, 19, and 21. Intel argued that the term should be given its ordinary meaning, while Qualcomm argued for a more specific construction. The Federal Circuit noted that ‘[e]ven without considering the surrounding claim language or the rest of the patent document, . . .it is not always appropriate to break down a phrase and give it an interpretation that is merely the sum of its parts.” The Federal Circuit said that the surrounding language points in favor of Qualcomm’s construction, adopted by the Board. The Federal Circuit said the linguistic clues suggested that “radio frequency input signal,” to the relevant audience, refers to the signal entering the device as a whole, not (as Intel proposes) to any radio frequency signal entering any component. The Federal Circuit said that the specification provides further support for the Board’s reading.

The Federal Circuit concluded that in sum, while Intel’s interpretation may have superficial appeal, Qualcomm’s better reflects the usage of “radio frequency input signal” in the intrinsic record, and affirmed it.

On the question of obviousness, the Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence does not
support the Board’s determination that a skilled artisan would have lacked reason to combine the prior art to achieve substitute claims 27, 28, and 31. The Federal Circuit rejected the Board’s rationale for determining that it would not have been obvious to combine the references. The Federal Circuit noted that a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.

Patent Venue Construed Strictly, Even in ANDA Litigation

Posted on by

In Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceutics Inc., [2021-1154] (November 5, 2021) the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement action against defendants, MPI and Mylan Inc. for improper venue, and against defendant Mylan N.V. for failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted.

After an giving an excellent summary of Hatch-Waxman Act litigation, the Federal Circuit recounted the history of the action. Celgene filed its first case in May 2017. The defendants-
appellees moved to dismiss for improper venue and failure to state a claim in August 2017. That motion was denied in March 2018 without prejudice so that the parties could engage in venue-related discovery.

After two years of that discovery, the defendants renewed their motion to dismiss. The district court concluded that venue was improper. Namely, the thin set of facts that Celgene had gathered after those two years—the presence of affiliated entities and employees in New Jersey—failed to show a “regular and established place of business” of the defendants in the district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

The Federal Circuit found that neither MPI nor Mylan had “committed acts of infringement” in New Jersey. The court noted that in Valeant, it said that “venue in Hatch-Waxman cases must be predicated on past acts of infringement.” For the purposes of the Hatch-Waxman Act, “it is the submission of the ANDA, and only the submission, that constitutes an act of infringement
in this context.” The question, then is where the submission occurred, and what acts it includes.

The Federal Circuit rejected the argument that the submission extends to whereever the generic drug woudl be marketed and sold. The Federal Circuit also rejected the argument that the submission included the act of sending the mandatory ANDA Notice, reiterating that it is the submission of the ANDA, and only the submission, that constitutes an act of infringement in this context.

The Federal Circuit also found that neither MPI nor Mylan had a regular and established place of business in New Jersey. There are three requirements for a regular and established palace of business: (1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant. The third requirement was the relevant one in this case. The place of business must be “of the defendant, not solely . . . of the defendant’s employee.” Accordingly, “the defendant must establish or ratify the place of business,” and it is “not enough that the employee does so on his or her own.”

As to the third requirement, the Federal Circuit noted that it has discussed four non-exhaustive relvant factors:

(1) “whether the defendant owns or leases the place, or exercises other attributes of possession or control over the place”; (2) “whether the defendant conditioned employment on” “an employee’s continued residence in the district” or “the storing of materials at a place in the district so that they can be distributed or sold from that place”; (3) “a defendant’s representations” about that place, including advertisements; and (4) “the nature and activity of
the alleged place of business of the defendant in the district in comparison with that of other places of business of the defendant in other venues.”

17 of MPI’s and Mylan’s tens of thousands of employees live in New Jersey, but MPI and Mylan showed that it did not require or instruct those employees to live in New Jersey, or pay for their homes, or require employees to store materials in their homes, or pay for secretarial or support staff. The Court found that a roster of employees who live in the state, a handful of business cards with employee names and New Jersey home addresses, and two LinkedIn
profiles mentioning New Jersey were all too speculative to show ratification of those addresses by MPI and Mylan.

The Federal Circuit also found that two small storage lockers rented by MPI sales or marketing employees to store product samples are not places “of the defendant.” Nor do they bolster that the employees’ homes were such places. Those lockers are rented in the employees’ own names. They are used to intermittently store and access product samples. There is no evidence, in contrast, that they are used like warehouses—for order fulfillment, wholesaling, retail, or the like.

Overall, the Federal Circuit concluded that the employee-associated locations are not
a regular and established place of business of the defendants under § 1400(b).

The district court also concluded that, for Mylan N.V., Celgene had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. That is, the ANDA that Celgene itself included with its complaint sought approval only on behalf of MPI. And Celgene’s pleadings with respect to the involvement of Mylan N.V. in that submission were simply too speculative and conclusory.

The Federal Circuit noted that MPI, not Mylan N.V., was the entity that signed and physically submitted the ANDA. Thus the question was whether Celgene sufficiently plead that (1) Mylan N.V. was actively involved in and directly benefited from the ANDA (including in the agent–principal sense) or (2) MPI acted as Mylan N.V.’s alter ego in derogation of the corporate form.
The Federal Circuit found that Celgene’s pleadings fail under either theory.

As to the denial of leave to amend the Complaint, the Federal Circuit said that Celgene’s allegations in its complaint were conclusory and insufficient. It knew the basis for their deficiency for years, as the district court correctly concluded, yet made no attempt to amend them in a timely manner. Nor has Celgene argued on appeal that it showed good cause. In
our view, then, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Celgene’s request for leave to amend its complaint.