米国: 鬼が笑う? 2023年の米国注目最高裁事件 - 気になった特許の話題 -Patent Topics Explorer-

Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy, No. 21-1281 (System for displaying media information while simultaneously experiencing the media content).
Tropp v. Travel Sentry, Inc., No. 22-22 (method of using a luggage lock with a master key held by TSA for airport security).

Supreme Court Patent Law 2023 | Patently-O (patentlyo.com)

さらに101条特許適格性については、米国議会に特許法改正案も提出されたのでこちらの動向も注目です。

www.patent-topics-explorer.com

②医薬品添付文書の侵害箇所を除外したジェネリック医薬 (Skinny Label)

現在ジェネリック医薬品を販売しようとするときに、一部の効能効果等に特許が残っている場合、その問題となる箇所をジェネリック医薬品の添付文書から削除すること(Skinny Labelと呼ばれています)で、早期のジェネリックの参入が図られています。

Teva Pharms. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLCでは、こちらの運用に問題を投げかける様な判決がでて、ジェネリック医薬品を販売するTevaが最高裁に下記の上告を行っています。

If a generic drug’s FDA-approved label carves out all of the language that the brand manufacturer has identified as covering its patented uses, can the generic manufacturer be held liable on a theory that its label still intentionally encourages infringement of those carved-out uses?

Teva v. GSK, et al. cert petition (supremecourt.gov)

③ PTABでの遮蔽効 (Estoppel)

幾つかPTABでの遮蔽効について最高裁への上告がされているそうです。こちらもどうなるか注目ですね。

Apple Inc., et al. v. California Institute of Technology, No. 22-203. Following an inter partes review, the petitioner is estopped from re-raising validity arguments that “reasonably could have been raised during that inter partes review.” Apple lost the IPR against CalTech’s patent and wants to raise additional defenses in the district court litigation. Apple has argued for a very narrow interpretation of the 315(e) estoppel while the Federal Circuit broadly interpreted the statute.
Jump Rope Systems, LLC v. Coulter Ventures, LLC, dba Rogue Fitness, No. 22-298. This case focuses on the doctrine of collateral estoppel and asks whether the Federal Circuit is correct that “a determination of unpatentability by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, affirmed by the Federal Circuit, has a collateral estoppel effect on patent validity in a patent infringement lawsuit in federal district court.” In other parallel scenarios, there would be no collateral estoppel because the first decision (invalidity at PTAB) is judged with a lower preponderance-of-the-evidence standard as compared with the later district court case that requires clear-and-convincing-evidence.
Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 22-554. This final asks the Supreme Court to reinvigorate its old precedent requiring contemporary corroboratory evidence in order to invalidate a patent based upon prior art.