WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 22 upheld the claim construction of various disputed terms proffered by a California federal judge in a win for Apple Inc. (Rembrandt Patent Innovations LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-2324, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Nov. 17 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Microsoft Corp. challenged the patentability of seven claims of a patented remote control with an auto-zoom feature, which allows for easier button selection on a touch screen (Microsoft Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. IPR2018-00185, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although affirming a California federal judge’s determination that various claims of a capacitor patent are not indefinite under Section 112 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 21 reversed an award of lost profits and grant of permanent injunctive relief in the case (Presidio Components Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp., Nos. 16-2607, -2650, Fed. Cir.).
HOUSTON — In a Nov. 21 ruling, a Texas federal judge interpreted the phrase “lawfully made under this title” as it appears in Section 109 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 109, to mean “that a copy is lawful if it was made in the United States in compliance with Title 17 or in a foreign country in a manner that would comply with Title 17 if United States copyright law applied” (Geophysical Services Inc. v. TGS Nopec-Geophysical Services, No. 14-1368, S.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192803).
SHERMAN, Texas — A company has properly stated a claim for relief in seeking declaratory relief against several former employees and its direct competitor for alleged trade secret misappropriation and patent and copyright infringement, among other things, and its claims under the Copyright Act provide a federal district court with federal question jurisdiction, a federal judge in Texas ruled Nov. 20 in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Performance Pulsation Control Inc. v. Sigma Drilling Technologies LLC, et al., No. 17-0450, E.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191530).
CHICAGO — Efforts by two defendants to obtain dismissal of allegations they committed copyright and trademark infringement by copying and exhibiting photographs by the late Vivian Maier were unsuccessful on Nov. 20, when an Illinois federal judge deemed claims by a public administrator appointed to Maier’s estate upon her death in 2009 adequately pleaded (The Estate of Vivian Maier v. Jeffrey Goldstein, et al., No. 17-2951, N.D. Ill., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191294).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware federal magistrate judge on Nov. 20 recommended that allegations that WhatsApp Inc. infringed two electronic messaging patents should proceed, rejecting a request for dismissal on grounds of patent ineligibility (TriPlay Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc., No. 13-1703, D. Del., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191330).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A judgment of patent invalidity based upon findings that certain language in a patented catalytic conversion system is indefinite was reversed Nov. 20 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (BASF Corporation v. Johnson Matthey Inc., No. 16-1770, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Two broadcasters were properly granted a summary judgment that their use of the name “Empire” is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Nov. 16 (Twentieth Century Fox Television, et al. v. Empire Distribution Inc., No. 16-55577, 9th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 17 turned away an inventor’s challenge to a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that rejected — as anticipated — various claims of a patent application (In re: C. Douglass Thomas, No. 17-1100, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23135).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Florida federal judge’s decision to dismiss a patent infringement complaint without prejudice following a plaintiff’s delayed efforts to add a co-inventor was upheld by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 17 (Cobra International Inc. v. BCNY International Inc., et al., Nos. 16-2103, -2173, -2635, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23133).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that granted priority was “logically inconsistent” with other findings by the board that the reference that triggered priority was not anticipatory of an interfering patent, the party asserting anticipation recently told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Otonomy Inc. v. Auris Medical AG, Nos. 17-1850, -1880, Fed. Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — A South Dakota organization affiliated with the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally tells the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a Nov. 6 brief that a jury correctly found its “Sturgis” trademarks to be valid and infringed by the sale of unlicensed Sturgis items. However, the plaintiff appeals a post-verdict ruling that vacated a damages award for the infringement (Sturgis Motorcycle Rally Inc. v. Rushmore Photo & Gifts Inc., et al., Nos. 17-1762, -1869, -2712 and -2731, 8th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 9 will hear oral arguments in a case that seeks to clarify the extent to which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is permitted, under the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute, 35 U.S.C. § 154(b), to reduce an applicant’s PTA (Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 17-1357, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Opposing Google LLC’s petition for certiorari in a Nov. 9 brief, a mobile technology firm tells the U.S. Supreme Court that, per the America Invents Act (AIA), the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has authority to review and reverse patent ineligibility determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) made during a covered business method (CBM) review (Google LLC v. Unwired Planet LLC., No. 17-357, U.S. Sup.).
NEW YORK — In a Nov. 1 reply brief, an intellectual property holding company tells the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a trial court erred in dismissing its copyright infringement claims against a Singapore firm for forum non conveniens, arguing that the defendant’s business ties in the United States, as well as its acts of infringement, adequately established New York jurisdiction (The Wave Studio LLC v. General Hotel Management Ltd., et al., No. 17-1018, 2nd Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals mistakenly held that a usenet service provider did not profit from the millions of unauthorized copyrighted images on its fee-based websites, an adult website operator argues in a Nov. 8 reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking a writ of certiorari to resolve what it says is a circuit split over a copyright holder’s duty to establish an infringer’s profits directly attributable to its works (Perfect 10 Inc. v. Giganews Inc., et al, No. 17-320, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Findings by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that the “Sensi” trademark in Class 5 of the Trademark Classifications for Goods and Services for diapers would likely cause confusion with two previously registered marks for “Sensi-Care” for use in connection with a treatment for diaper rash were not erroneous, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Nov. 13 (In re: P.T. Arista Latindo, No. 17-1292, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22637).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A recent ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that established a series of factors to consider when multiple petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of one patent are filed by one party should not have been relied on by the board in turning away a petition for IPR in October, the petitioner asserts in a Nov. 13 request for rehearing (NetApp Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC, No. IPR2017-01196, PTAB).
TOLEDO, Ohio — An architectural expert in a home design copyright infringement action cannot opine that a company’s designs do not merit copyright protection because the opinion is an impermissible legal conclusion, though the expert can testify about the similarities and differences between the parties’ designs, an Ohio federal judge held Nov. 14 (Design Basics LLC v. Forrester Wehrle Homes, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-00666, N.D. Ohio, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188005).