August 26, 2019
Authored and Edited by Yieyie Yang, Ph.D.; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Anza Technology, Inc. v. Mushkin Inc., No. 2019-1045 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2019), the Court assessed whether claims in an amended complaint could relate back to the filing date of the original complaint. In its original complaint, Anza alleged sixteen Mushkin products infringed its ’927 patent directed to dissipative and insulative ceramic flip chip bonding tools. In the later-amended complaint, Anza dropped its claims with regard to the ’927 patent and instead alleged Mushkin infringed the ’479 and ’864 patents, also directed to dissipative ceramic bonding tools. Anza omitted ten of the original sixteen products and accused two new products.
When assessing whether the claims in Anza’s amended complaint could relate back to the filing of the original complaint, the Court adopted the Supreme Court’s liberal notice-based understanding of Rule 15(c). It assessed “the overlap of the parties, the overlap of the accused products, the underlying science and technology, time periods, and any additional factors that might suggest a commonality or lack of commonality between the two sets of claims.” Slip Op. at 16.
When applied to the facts before it, the Court held, although the patents asserted in the original and amended complaints were different and addressed different bonding techniques, they still shared the same underlying technology and focused on solving the same problem by the same solution. And, because the use of bonding tool tips made of dissipative material was the basis for the infringement claims in both the original and the amended complaint, the Court concluded the “aggregate of operative facts” underlying the original complaint gave notice to the defendant of the substance of the infringement claims set forth in the amended complaint. Thus, for products accused in both the original and amended complaints, the Court held the amended complaint sufficiently related back to the original complaint. For products introduced for the first time in the amended complaint, however, the Court remanded for the district court to assess in the first instance whether the amended complaint should relate back to the date of the original complaint.
Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.