MENU

Intellectual Property

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-6-17 featuring J. Devlin Hartline
J. Devlin Hartline April 06, 2017

On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. TC Heartland LLC (Heartland) is organized under Indiana law and headquartered in Indiana. Kraft Food Brands LLC (Kraft) is organized under Delaware law with its principal place of business in Illinois. Kraft sued Heartland in federal district court in Delaware, alleging that products Heartland shipped to Delaware infringed on Kraft’s patents for similar products. Heartland moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that the federal court in Delaware lacked the necessary jurisdiction over Heartland’s person--i.e., “personal jurisdiction.” Alternatively, Heartland sought transfer of the case to a venue in the Southern District of Indiana. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that Heartland’s contacts with Delaware were sufficient to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The court also denied the request to transfer venue, citing precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicating that, under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1391 and 1400, venue for a corporate defendant, including in a patent infringement suit, is proper in any district in which the defendant is subject to a federal court’s personal jurisdiction.  

Heartland then sought a writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit ordering the district court to dismiss the case or transfer venue, arguing that Heartland did not “reside” in Delaware for purposes of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1400. The Federal Circuit denied the writ, indicating that the lower court had acted properly and that Congress’ 2011 amendments to the venue statute did not provide cause to change the Federal Circuit’s prevailing interpretation of the statute.

The question now before the Supreme Court is whether the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which provides that patent infringement actions “may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides[,]” is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions and is not affected by the statute governing “[v]enue generally,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which has long contained a subsection (c) that, where applicable, deems a corporate entity to reside in multiple judicial districts.

To discuss the case, we have J. Devlin Hartline, who is Assistant Director, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-6-17 featuring David S. Olson
David S. Olson April 06, 2017

On March 21, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexmark), which owns many patents for its printer toner cartridges, allows customers to buy its cartridges through a “Return Program,” which is administered under a combination single-use patent and contract license. Customers purchasing cartridges through the Return Program are given a discount in exchange for agreeing to use each cartridge once before returning it to Lexmark. All of the domestically-sold cartridges at issue here and some of those sold abroad were subject to the Return Program. Impression Products, Inc. (Impression) acquired some Lexmark cartridges abroad--after a third party physically changed the cartridges to enable their re-use--in order to resell them in the United States. Lexmark then sued, alleging that Impression had infringed on Lexmark’s patents because Impression acted without authorization from Lexmark to resell and reuse the cartridges. Impression contended that its resale of the cartridges was not an infringement because Lexmark, in transferring the title by selling the cartridges initially, granted the requisite authority. The district court granted Impression’s motion to dismiss as it related to the domestically sold cartridges but denied it as to the foreign-sold cartridges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment as to the domestically sold cartridges but affirmed dismissal regarding the cartridges sold abroad.

There are two questions now before the Supreme Court: (1) whether a “conditional sale” that transfers title to the patented item while specifying post-sale restrictions on the article's use or resale avoids application of the patent-exhaustion doctrine and therefore permits the enforcement of such post-sale restrictions through the patent law’s infringement remedy; and (2) whether, in light of this court’s holding in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. that the common-law doctrine barring restraints on alienation that is the basis of exhaustion doctrine “makes no geographical distinctions,” a sale of a patented article – authorized by the U.S. patentee – that takes place outside the United States exhausts the U.S. patent rights in that article.

To discuss the case, we have David S. Olson, who is Associate Professor of Law at Boston College Law School.

Courthouse Steps: Fashionable Copyright Law in the U.S. Supreme Court - Podcast

Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast
Sandra Aistars April 05, 2017

Last Wednesday the Supreme Court handed down a 6-2 opinion resolving a long mystifying test of when a feature of a useful article may be protected by copyright law. Hewing closely to the text of the Copyright Act, the opinion, authored by Justice Thomas, announced a new separability test holding that a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection if the feature (1) can be perceived as a 2 or 3 dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work if it were imagined separately from the useful article.  

Professor Sandra Aistars of Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University explored the implications for copyright in general and industries beyond fashion.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Sandra Aistars, Clinical Professor and Senior Scholar and Director of Copyright Research and Policy of CPIP, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Bitcoin: Competitive Currency

Short video featuring Max Raskin
Max Raskin March 30, 2017

Can Bitcoin compete with other currencies around the world? Max Raskin, Research Fellow at the Institute for Judicial Administration at the New York University School of Law, discusses legal tender laws and the monopoly powers they give to central banks - and possible benefits that a virtual currency could provide to developing countries.