SEATTLE — In a July 8 order, a Washington federal magistrate judge denied a plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of a June 2020 dismissal of allegations that Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Digital Services LLC (Amazon, collectively) “make available” for sale unauthorized copies of copyrighted recordings in violation of the plaintiff’s exclusive distribution rights (SA Music LLC et al., v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Nos. 20-105, -106, -107, W.D. Wash., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118616).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 8 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part a Texas federal judge’s determination of patent indefiniteness, but for a different reason than that relied on by the district court (Via Vadis LLC, et al. v. Blizzard Entertainment Inc., et al., Nos. 19-2269, -2270, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21200).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 8 upheld findings by a patent examiner, and later the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, that a claimed method of achieving weight loss by using hunger as a feedback mechanism recites patent-ineligible subject matter (In re: Zunshine, No. 20-1254, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21201).
SAN DIEGO — Finding no evidence that an adult entertainment firm engaged in any misconduct or acted with unclean hands in its motion for discovery to identify a John Doe defendant accused of downloading its copyrighted works, a California federal magistrate judge on July 6 denied Doe’s motion to quash a subpoena served on his internet service provider (ISP) so that the company can pursue its copyright infringement claim against him (Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. John Doe, No. 3:20-cv-00067, S.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118058).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Florida federal judge’s application of the trademark statute in assessing a request for an award of attorney fees in a patent case was an abuse of discretion, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 1, reversing and remanding (Electronic Communication Technologies LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com LLC, No. 19-2087, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 20504).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a precedential order issued July 7, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrote that it can find “no principled reason to depart” from the remedy proscribed in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2019-1671, (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2020), when assessing a constitutional challenge to the makeup of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board panel in an ex parte proceeding (In re: Boloro Global Limited, No. 19-2349, Fed. Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — In a July 2 ruling, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a Texas federal judge’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a copyright infringement defendant, but vacated the judge’s subsequent decision to deny the defendant its request for more than $1 million in attorney fees (Digital Drilling Data Systems L.L.C. v. Petrolink Services Inc., No. 19-20116, 5th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 20803).
NEW ORLEANS — A panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 30 upheld a Texas federal judge’s determination that two tortious interference defendants are entitled to immunity in connection with cease-and-desist letters they sent that asserted copyright and trademark infringement by a competitor (Construction Cost Data L.L.C. et al., v. Gordian Group Inc., et al., No. 19-20482, 5th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 20489).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 1 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld findings by a federal judge in Massachusetts that various claims of two patents directed to mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) are ineligible for patenting (CardioNet LLC, et al. v. InfoBionic Inc., No. 20-1018, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 20632).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 2 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that various claims of a data capacity management patent are obvious, while dismissing as moot the patent owner’s appeal in two other inter partes reviews (IPRs) (Sound View Innovations LLC v. Hulu LLC, et al., Nos. 2019-1865, -1867, Fed. Cir.).
CINCINNATI— In corrected briefs filed June 24 in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, an injection molding manufacturer and its current and past contractors argue over whether a control system made via the former contractor’s technical drawings and designs constitutes copyright infringement or, as a trial court found, is covered by patent law (RJ Control Consultants Inc., et al. v. Multiject LLC, et al., No. 20-1009, 6th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its July 2 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari by Booking.com B.V. in which the travel website asserted that it cannot be made to reimburse the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) attorney fees the agency incurred in connection with its defense of a denied trademark registration (Booking.com B.V. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 18-1309, U.S. Sup.).
By Meaghan H. Kent and Danae Tinelli
LOS ANGELES — A provider of renewable energy, clean transportation and design and manufacturing services and its subsidiary that is the exclusive seller of Build Your Dreams (BYD) health care products in North America filed an unfair competition, trademark dilution and trademark infringement lawsuit in a California federal court on June 22, alleging that “bad actors” used their “brand recognition and trademarks to deceive and harm the public” and that the consequences of counterfeit respirator masks “can literally be deadly” (BYD Company Ltd, et al. v. Alexander Khazai, et al., No. 20-5530, C.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred when it determined that an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that five claims of a valve assembly patent are anticipated by a German patent application, a cross-appellant told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals June 15 (Power-Packer North America Inc., d/b/a Gits Manufacturing Co. v. G.W. Lisk Co. Inc., Nos. 2020-1250, -1323, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 22 appellant brief, an inventor defended as patentable his “novel bonus feature for a card game,” while also levying a constitutional challenge to the covered business method (CBM) review procedure administered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (New Vision Gaming and Development Inc. v. SG Gaming Inc., No. 20-1399, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 30 petition for inter partes review (IPR), Juniper Networks Inc. asserts that a patented “phase cancellation” method for reducing wireless signal interference is not patentable (Juniper Networks Inc. v. American Patents LLC, No. IPR2020-01115, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Without reaching the question of whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in allowing an expert to rely on nonpublic documents to support his opinion of unpatentability, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 26 upheld the board’s cancellation of various claims of two aircraft lavatory-related patents (B/E Aerospace Inc. v. C&D Zodiac Inc., Nos. 2019-1935, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 19886).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Citing a recent final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that canceled all challenged claims of a gaming controller patent, Nintendo Of America Inc. on June 26 told the board that it should also cancel a related patent that “claims effectively the same” invention (Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Gamevice Inc., No. IPR2020-01179, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 29 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with Comcast Cable Communications LLC that 28 claims of an on-demand media delivery patent should be canceled (Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Rovi Guides Inc., No. IPR2019-00299, PTAB).