ALEXANDRIA, Va. — On the heels of its Feb. 16 ruling that granted inter partes review (IPR) of one claim of a hovercraft patent, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was asked March 15 to also review several other claims of the same patent on anticipation grounds (Parrot S.A., et al. v. QFO Labs Inc., No. IPR2017-01089, PTAB).
TYLER, Texas — In a patent infringement lawsuit, an expert may provide opinions “based on his technical knowledge and expertise” as to the technical advantages of a claimed process of forming circuitry used in controlling liquid crystal displays (LCDs), a Texas federal magistrate judge ruled March 22 (Eidos Display LLC and Eidos III LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., et al., No. 11-00201, E.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41040).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 21 dismissed an insured’s appeal in an advertising injury coverage dispute after a lower federal court determined on remand that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case (Vogue International, LLC, d.b.a. Vogue International v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., No. 14-56394, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5011).
NEW ORLEANS — A dismissal with prejudice of a complaint seeking a declaration of patent noninfringement and that no trade secrets were misappropriated was correct, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 20 in a dispute over gas-to-liquid (GTL) conversion technology (Sasol North America Inc., et al. v. GTLPetrol LLC, No. 16-20122, 5th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5107).
ALBANY, N.Y. — Citing evidence that a defendant acted outside the scope of its licensing agreement with a plaintiff, as well as evidence that the defendant used a trademark identical to that of a plaintiff, a New York federal judge on March 22 granted partial summary judgment in a dispute over sports protective eyewear (Halo Optical Products Inc. v. Liberty Sport Inc., No. 14-282, N.D. N.Y., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41084).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 21 affirmed a lower federal court’s $6,080,568 judgment in favor of an insured in a breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit against its excess general liability insurer arising from an underlying patent infringement dispute (Teleflex Medical Incorporated v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 14-56366, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996).
SAN FRANCISCO — A service that captures copyrighted works broadcast over the air for online retransmission to paying subscribers without the consent of a copyright holder is not eligible for the compulsory license for “cable systems” provided for in Section 111 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 21 (Fox Television Stations Inc., et al. v. Aereokiller LLC, No. 15-56420, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4999).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In divided decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on March 22 ruled that a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection when the feature can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and would qualify on its own or in some other tangible medium as a protectable pictorial, graphic or sculptural work (Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., et al., No. 15-866, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The doctrine of patent exhaustion is not avoidable by attaching post-sale restrictions, an attorney for a patent infringement defendant told the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 (Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc., No. 15-1189, U.S. Sup.).
NEW ORLEANS — An award of royalty damages on behalf of a trademark infringement plaintiff was vacated March 16 by the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Streamline Production Systems Inc. v. Streamline Manufacturing Inc., No. 16-20046, 5th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4708).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Delaware federal judge did not abuse her discretion in determining that a failed patent case by Bayer Cropscience AG was exceptional, thereby triggering an award of attorney fees, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded March 17 (Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, No. 15-1854, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4723).
MARSHALL, Texas — Although a urologist’s testimony on the inefficacy of natural and herbal remedies was barred in a patent infringement case over a drug’s marketing, a Texas federal judge on March 17 allowed the urologist to testify as to the drug’s marketing (Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Co., No. 15-1202, E.D. Texas; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38512).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a 7-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 rejected findings by a divided en banc Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the equitable defense of laches remains available even when a claim for damages is brought within the six-year limitations period set forth in Section 286 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag and SCA Personal Care, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al., No. 15-927, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Acting on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 17 found that a patent dispute requires a new trial on damages in light of Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016) (Nordock Inc. v. Systems Inc., Nos. 14-1762, -1795, Fed. Cir.; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4732).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A North Carolina federal judge’s determination that all claims of a hair growth patent are invalid was reversed March 17 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Allergan Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., Nos. 16-1085, -1160, Fed. Cir.; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4733).
OKLAHOMA CITY — Allegations that a licensee exceed the terms of its license to use various photographs of its own equipment and property will proceed, in light of a March 10 ruling by an Oklahoma federal judge which denied, in part, a motion for summary judgment (David McNeese v. Access Midstream Partners LP, No. 14-503, W.D. Okla.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34538).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Amgen Inc. filed its opening and response brief on March 10 in its high-stakes suit with Sandoz Inc., arguing that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals did not err by requiring biosimilar makers to get approval before supplying 180-day notice of sales to rivals because permitting notice before approval is consistent with “early resolution of patent disputes” (Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing Ltd., No. 15-1039, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A manufacturer of butterfly valves on March 8 petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to answer whether Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act preempts state law claims relating to ideas expressed in tangible media (Ultraflo Corp. v. Pelican Tank Parts Inc., et al., No. 16-1085, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent owner in a Feb. 28 petition for writ of certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if patent claims directed to concrete and tangible inventions, “which are neither directed to a mathematical algorithm nor a business method,” are eligible subject matter under step one of the framework in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Digital Services Inc., No. 16-1047, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A musician in a Feb. 20 petition for writ of certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to answer if “claim preclusion, a non-statutory defense is available without restriction to bar all remedies for civil copyright claims filed within the three-year statute of limitations prescribed by Congress, [17 U.S. Code Section 507(b)], 17 U.S.C. § 507(b)” (Syl Johnson v. UMG Recordings Inc., et al., No. 16-1052, U.S. Sup.).