DALLAS — A patent relating to body movement detection was declared ineligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act on Jan. 17 by a federal judge in Texas, in a win for Nintendo of America Inc., who was ordered by jurors in 2017 to pay a patent owner $10.1 million in reasonable royalty damages (iLife Technologies, Inc. v. Nintendo of America Inc., No. 13-4987, N.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10018).
WILMINGTON, Del. — In a Jan. 22 report and recommendation, a federal magistrate judge in Delaware said that a defendant accused by Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. of patent infringement is entitled to a summary judgment that three patent claims recite ineligible subject matter (Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics LLC, et al., No. 17-1390, D. Del., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10407).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 23 found that a New York federal judge erred in granting Facebook Inc. summary judgment on allegations that the social networking giant infringed three data patents (Mirror Worlds Technologies LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. 18-2276, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Jan. 17 filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Google LLC requests cancellation of a single claim of a Uniloc 2017 LLC patent directed to data modification (Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2020-00447, PTAB).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — In a Jan. 17 claim construction ruling, a Kansas federal judge rejected efforts by a defendant to argue that the scope of two design patents relating to bridesmaid gowns is “circumscribed” by prior art designs of formal and convertible dresses (Jenny Yoo Collection Inc. v. Essense of Australia Inc., No. 17-2666, D. Kan., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8207).
ATLANTA — A Georgia federal judge’s rejection of a car maker’s request to intervene in a forfeiture proceeding involving counterfeit replacement grilles will not be disturbed, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Jan. 15 (FCA US LLC v. LKQ Corporation, No. 19-12023, 11th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1336).
NEW YORK — In a Jan. 15 order, a federal judge in New York ruled that singer-songwriter Edward Sheeran must produce documents relating to ticket and merchandise sales at concerts where he performed “Thinking Out Loud” (TOL) (Structured Asset Sales LLC v. Edward Sheeran, et al., No. 18-5839, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8614).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Jan. 16 affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a commercial liability insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured against underlying claims that it fraudulently procured a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and used that particular patent to attempt to monopolize the active dopant metrology market, rejecting the argument that it was objectively reasonable for the insured to expect that the policy’s “malicious prosecution” coverage extended to this claim (Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. KLA Tencor Corp., No. H044890, Calif. App., 6th Dist.).
NEW ORLEANS — In what it deemed a case of first impression, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 15 ruled that failure to mitigate damages does not preclude liability altogether when assessing statutory damages under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c) (Energy Intelligence Group Inc. v. Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors LP, No. 18-20350, 5th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1347).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent owner on Jan. 7 maintained before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a Delaware federal magistrate judge arrived at an incorrect construction of a disputed claim term in a patent infringement lawsuit over the “Bing” search engine (Improved Search LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 19-1961, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Jan. 15 patent owner response, a computer hardware and security company asserts that prior art relied upon by a petitioner for inter partes review (IPR) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in instituting IPR, does not render its invention obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA) (Trend Micro Inc. v. CUPP Computing AS, No. IPR2019-00803, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Jan. 15 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that a federal judge in Connecticut did not abuse his discretion in granting LEGO A/S a preliminary injunction barring a competitor from selling action figures that infringe LEGO’s “minifigure” copyrights (LEGO A/S v. ZURU Inc., No. 19-2122, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1282).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Less than two weeks after VirnetX Inc. waived its right to respond to Apple Inc.’s petition for certiorari in a suit where Apple was hit with a $439 million damages judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14 asked the respondent to file its answers to questions raised about patent apportionment and invalidation (Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., et al., No. 19-832, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a Jan. 15 final written decision agreed with Apple Inc. that all four claims of a Qualcomm patent would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Corp., No. IPR2018-01245, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An August finding by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that it lacks jurisdiction over allegations that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violated SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu when, on remand, it issued a discretionary denial of three petitions for inter partes review (IPR) will stand, the Federal Circuit announced Jan. 13 (BioDelivery Sciences International Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics Inc., Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1030).
SAN DIEGO — In a Jan. 13 order, a federal judge in California found that the nonprofit veterans advocacy group “Veterans 360” is not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USVA) from using the “Vet360” and “Veteran 360” trademarks (Rick Collins, et al. v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 19-867, S.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5625).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Jan. 13 patent owner response, IPA Technologies Inc. defended its digital assistant and speech-based navigation technology as groundbreaking (Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., No. IPR2019-00734, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An attorney for a manufacturer of handbag fasteners on Jan. 14 argued before the U.S. Supreme Courtt hat an innocent trademark infringer can nonetheless be subject to an award of disgorged profits under the Lanham Act and that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in reaching a contrary conclusion (Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., et al., No. 18-1233, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Jan. 13 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a petition for certiorari that poses the question of whether method-of-treatment patent claims automatically satisfy Section 101 of the Patent Act, even if they consist only of application of natural law using routine steps (Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., No. 18-817, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Dec. 23 reply brief, an unsuccessful inter partes review (IPR) petitioner tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred when it upheld as patentable various claims of a technique for testing electronic circuits with a laser (Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. v. SEMICAPS Pte. Ltd., No. 19-1890, Fed. Cir.).