💙 🔷 Not impressed by Big Tech in Q3? Explore these Blue Chip Bargains insteadUnlock them all

US Supreme Court rejects Avery Dennison appeal on patent eligibility

Published 05/30/2023, 09:53 AM
Updated 05/30/2023, 11:01 AM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: People walk across the plaza of the U.S. Supreme Court building on the first day of the court's new term in Washington, U.S. October 3, 2022.  REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/
AVY
-
AXL
-

By Blake Brittain

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a patent dispute between labeling company Avery Dennison Corp (NYSE:AVY) and ADASA Inc that would have given it a chance to clarify a standard that critics have said has sown confusion about what inventions can be legally protected and led to cancellations of valid patents.

The justices declined to hear Avery Dennison's appeal of a lower court's decision upholding a patent involving tracking tags that was the subject of a $62.4 million infringement award won by ADASA in a lawsuit brought in Oregon.

The justices have not explored the question of patent eligibility since 2014, rebuffing various requests to take up the issue.

Eugene, Oregon-based ADASA, which owns radio frequency identification (RFID) patents, sued Mentor, Ohio-based Avery Dennison in 2017. ADASA claimed that Avery Dennison's RFID transponders infringed one of its patents.

A jury awarded ADASA $26.6 million in infringement damages in 2021, with a judge subsequently increasing the amount to $62.4 million.

The patent-focused U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last year affirmed that ADASA's patent was valid, rejecting Avery Dennison's argument that it covered a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The Federal Circuit also vacated part of the award, and sent the case back for a jury to reconsider if the patent was invalid on other grounds.

Avery Dennison appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing in its petition to the justices that its patent covers the "simple concept of treating one long serial number as the combination of two shorter numbers, and then directing that blocks of RFID tags all start with the same shorter number."

The company added that "no issue in patent law today is more significant - or more divisive" than patent eligibility.

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: People walk across the plaza of the U.S. Supreme Court building on the first day of the court's new term in Washington, U.S. October 3, 2022.  REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/

The Supreme Court last addressed the concept in a 2014 case called Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International that helped establish a two-part test. The test requires courts to determine if an invention involves an unpatentable abstract idea, natural phenomenon or law of nature - and if so, whether it includes an inventive concept.

The justices turned away another closely watched patent eligibility case last year involving an American Axle (NYSE:AXL) & Manufacturing Inc driveshaft patent. President Joe Biden's administration had encouraged the Supreme Court to hear that case as well as two others that the justices chose not to take up this term.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.