WASHINGTON, D.C. — Responding to an amicus curiae brief filed by the U.S. government, Google LLC filed a supplemental brief in support of its petition for certiorari on Oct. 16, telling the U.S. Supreme Court that its presented questions regarding the copyrightability of software interfaces are of “breathtaking importance” to the practice of reimplementation that is vital to the software industry (Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Oct. 15 appellant brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner argues that a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a valve assembly patent is not anticipated by prior art should be reversed or vacated (Power-Packer North America Inc. v. G.W. Lisk Company Inc., Nos. 2019-1902, -1965, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A September 2019 divided decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that turned away an Apple Inc. petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patented beacon for transmitting Bluetooth messages should be reheard, the software giant maintains in an Oct. 16 filing with the board (Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2019-00753, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The American Civil Liberties Union and two groups of professors filed amicus curiae briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 16, bringing the tally to 13 for briefs filed in support of the respondent’s position that the government edicts doctrine renders annotations accompanying written copies of public laws uncopyrightable (Georgia, et al. v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., No. 18-1150, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that affirmed an examiner’s rejection of a handheld device patent application was reversed Oct. 16 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that the board’s holding is “unsupported by substantial evidence” (In re: Stepen Brian Gates et al., No. 18-2331, Fed. Cir.).
NEW YORK — More than three years after the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals partly reversed a trial court’s ruling in favor of an online video-sharing service provider in a copyright infringement suit against it, a New York federal judge on Oct. 4 directed the plaintiff record labels to supplement and clarify their submitted evidence supporting assertions that employees of Vimeo LLC had “red flag knowledge” that certain user-submitted videos were infringing (Capitol Records LLC, et al. v. Vimeo LLC, et al., No. 1:09-cv-10101 and -10105, S.D. N.Y.).
TEXARKANA, Texas — After seeing their motions to dismiss and transfer denied, an antitrust lawsuit brought against them by an online travel agency (OTA), the defendant hotel chains each filed answers in Texas federal court on Oct. 11, denying any conspiracy and leveling counterclaims for trademark infringement against TravelPass Group LLC (TravelPass Group LLC, et al. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 5:18-cv-00153, E.D. Texas).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Oct. 15 patent owner response, a voting machine equipment manufacturer told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it should reject an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s assertion that a patented ballot marking device (BMD) is obvious (Smartmatic USA Corporation v. Election Systems & Software LLC, No. IPR2019-00531, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A combination of prior art references relied upon by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board does not present substantial evidence of obviousness, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 15 (Knauf Insulation Inc. v. Rockwool International A/S, Nos. 2018-1810, 2018-1811, 2018-1891, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30634).
MIAMI — In an Oct. 9 order, a federal judge in Florida partially granted a motion to dismiss in part filed by counterdefendants in a trademark infringement lawsuit, ruling, in particular, that counterplaintiffs in the action have failed to sufficiently state their counterclaim for trade secret misappropriation under Florida trade secret law (VVIG Inc. v. Henry Alvarez, et al., No. 18-23109, S.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175304).
CINCINNATI — A federal judge in Ohio on Oct. 8 ruled that a medical device maker has sufficiently shown that personal jurisdiction exists over its claims in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit against former business associates based in China under Ohio’s long-arm statute and the due process clause of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (AtriCure Inc. v. Dr. Jian Meng, et al., No. 19-0054, S.D. Ohio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174499).
ROANOAKE, Va. — Franchisees who continued using their former franchisor’s trademarks after their franchise agreement was terminated must pay $3,094,066 in connection with the infringement, a Virginia federal judge ruled Sept. 30 (Choice Hotels International Inc. v. A Royal Touch Hospitality LLC, et al., No. 17-381, W.D. Va., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167904).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Oct. 9 petition for inter partes review (IPR), a medical device maker told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it should cancel five claims of a patented splint for correcting ear deformations (TalexMedical LLC v. Becon Medical Ltd., No. IPR2020-00030, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in Texas did not err in denying an inventor’s motion to transfer his patent infringement case against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to California or in deeming the dispute precluded in view of a previously filed lawsuit, a per curiam panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 9 (Xiaohua Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., No. 19-1726, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30232).
PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge in Pennsylvania should deny pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc.’s motion to dismiss a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit filed against it and one of its employees because each of Pfizer’s arguments in support of its motion is meritless, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. argues in an Oct. 7 opposition brief filed in Pennsylvania federal court (Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Pfizer Inc., et al., No. 19-2011, E.D. Pa.).
BALTIMORE — Allegations by a defendant that a plaintiff committed tortious interference with prospective advantage when it filed a patent infringement complaint in April 2019 were rejected Oct. 8 by a federal judge in Maryland (Leading Technology Composites v. MV2 LLC, No. 19-1256, D. Md., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174829).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Oct. 8 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with inter partes review (IPR) petitioner Apple Inc. that a patent directed to authenticating the identity of multiple users would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA) (Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC, No. IPR2018-00809, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Oct. 7 brief filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Samsung Electronics Co. argues that “in light of the . . . guidance” provided in a July 019 decision by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a draft included in a listserv qualifies as a printed publication and is thus relevant prior art (Samsung Electronics Co. v. Infobridge PTE Ltd., Nos. IPR2017-00099, IPR2017-00100, PTAB).
TAMPA, Fla. — In a blow to Sream Inc., exclusive licensee of the “RooR” trademark, a federal judge in Florida on Oct. 7 found that only a registrant or its assignee has standing to sue for infringement (RooR International B.V. et al., v. Good Timez III LLC et al., No. 19-439, M.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173283).
CINCINNATI — A panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 7 vacated a Michigan federal judge’s grant of summary judgment that two defendants are not liable for copyright infringement because the copyrights at issue were not unambiguously transferred in a 2013 asset sale (Evoqua Water Technologies LLC v. M.W. Watermark LLC, et al., Nos. 18-2397, 18-2398, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30023).