WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 21 vacated certain aspects of a final decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, agreeing that the underlying request for inter partes re-examination should not have been granted pursuant to Section 317(b) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) (Fairchild [Taiwan] Corporation v. Power Integrations Inc., No. 17-1002, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6998).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 1 will hear oral arguments in a dispute over the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s construction of the disputed term “traversing,” as it appears in a patent application for a device for extracting energy from fluid flow within the body (In re: Medical Biomech Partnership, No. 16-2159, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge properly rejected a state law unfair competition plaintiff’s effort to apply the Lanham Act’s “establishment claim” standard outside the context of a Lanham Act claim, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 21 (Serena Kwan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SanMedica International, No. 15-15496, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6995).
CINCINNATI — Allegations that Kentucky Downs LLC infringed the trademarks of other horse racing venues when operating an historical horse-race gambling platform were properly dismissed, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 19 (Oaklawn Jockey Club Inc., et al. v. Kentucky Downs LLC and Exacta Systems LLC, No. 16-5582, 6th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7078).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on April 20 granted a motion filed by the owner of certain trademarks for summary judgment on its other claims for infringement and counterfeiting of a registered mark, awarding it $1 million in damages (UL LLC v. The Space Chariot Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-08172, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56147).
NEWARK, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on April 17 substantially denied a motion to dismiss filed by defendants in a copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit, ruling that a company has properly pleaded its claims against a majority of the defendants in the action (Jorgensen & Co. v. Gary Sutherland, et al., No. 15-7373, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59108).
MADISON, Wis. — An infringement plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on a defendant’s assertion that two sets of copyrighted illustrations constitute a joint work was denied April 18 by a Wisconsin federal judge (Amy Lee Sullivan v. Flora Inc., No. 15-298, W.D. Wis., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58774).
OMAHA, Neb. — A request by a plaintiff for summary judgment on its allegations that four defendants infringed the “LaGrange” trademark was granted, in part, by a Nebraska federal judge on April 18 (JDR Industries v. James L. Vance, et al., No. 14-284, D. Neb., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58912).
WILMINGTON, Del. — An expert did not offer any developed damages theory relating to International Business Machines Corp.’s (IBM) use of its website, and there were “serious methodological and reliability problems” in his assumptions, a Delaware federal judge held April 17, excluding testimony in a patent infringement lawsuit (Parallel Networks Licensing LLC v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 13-2072, D. Del., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58394).
PHILADELPHIA — A decision by a Pennsylvania federal judge to “eschew” statutory damages and award more than $4 million to a trademark plaintiff was an abuse of discretion because “the record was insufficient to approximate actual damages,” the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 18 (Covertech Fabricating Inc. v. TVM Building Products Inc., No. 15-3893, 3rd Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6588).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an April 17 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with a patent examiner that 20 claims of a patented system and method for detecting and nullifying the effects of computer viruses do not pass muster under Section 103(a) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (Ex parte Intellectual Ventures I LLC, No. 2017-000054, PTAB).
NEW YORK — In an April 17 ruling, a New York federal judge rejected a request by a plaintiff for intentional interference with contractual relations damages in connection with enforcement efforts by the agent for BMG Rights Management US LLC (Windstream Services LLC v. BMG Rights Management US LLC and Rightscorp Inc., No. 16-5015, S.D. N.Y., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58204).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although largely affirming a Texas federal judge’s claim construction and denial of a Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. request for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that two patents are invalid as obvious, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 17 nonetheless vacated a ruling that a patent owner’s damages should not be limited on the basis of its failure to mark products as patented (Rembrandt Wireless Technologies L.P. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 16-1729, Fed. Cir.; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6502).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patented network-computer-based personal contact manager system renders a claimed system for sharing information over the internet unpatentable, Facebook Inc. alleges in an April 14 petition for inter partes review filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Facebook Inc. v. ZKey Investments LLC, No. IPR2017-01278, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A North Carolina federal judge did not err in granting summary judgment to a Lanham Act and Patent Act defendant accused of marking its key-cutting machines as “patent pending,” the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 13 (Gordon Gravelle v. Kaba Ibco Corp., No. 16-2318, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6246).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Allegations that Apple Inc. infringed a patent claim directed to a means of sending packet data from a cellular telephone to a network through the use of a selected channel were properly rejected by a Texas federal judge and jury, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 14 (Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-2037, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6410).
PHILADELPHIA — Allegations by myriad plaintiffs that the companies that hold patents for the brand name drugs Lipitor and Effexor XR engaged in fraudulent patent procurement — known as Walker Process fraud pursuant to Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965) — do not arise under federal patent law, such that an appeal in the case must necessarily proceed in the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 13 (In re: Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, Nos. 14-4202, -4203, -4204, -4205, -4206, -4602, -4632, 15-1184, -1185, -1186, -1187, -1274, -1323 and 15-134, 3rd Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6346).
PORTLAND, Ore. — While allowing expert testimony on objective considerations of nonobviousness, an Oregon federal judge also granted in part summary judgment on April 12 to a sportswear company that certain prior art references do not anticipate utility patents relating to heat-directing elements to a garment’s innermost surface (Columbia Sportswear North America Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories Inc., No. 15-00064, D. Ore., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55714).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 7 petition for certiorari, former executives with now-defunct file-sharing service Megaupload ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments over the U.S. government’s application of laws governing the forfeiture of foreign-held assets by those deemed to be fugitives avoiding prosecution, arguing that their assets were wrongly seized in conjunction with a novel, untested theory of criminal copyright infringement (Finn Batato, et al. v. United States of America, No. 16-1206, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 31 brief, Sandoz Inc. tells the U.S. Supreme Court that rival biologic maker Amgen Inc. and the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have improperly read a requirement into a federal biosimilar statute mandating Food and Drug Administration approval of a biologic license application prior to the statute’s required 180-day premarketing notice (Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., et al.., No. 15-1039 and 15-1195, U.S. Sup.).