Mealey's Patents

  • July 01, 2020

    In Cross-Appeal, Patent Owner Disputes Board Anticipation Holding

    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.).

  • July 01, 2020

    Gaming ‘Bonus Feature’ Patent Claims Wrongly Canceled, Owner Says

    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.).

  • July 01, 2020

    Juniper Tells Board Interference Reducing Patent Is Obvious

    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).

  • July 01, 2020

    Panel Confirms:  Aircraft Lavatory-Related Patents Are Obvious

    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).

  • July 01, 2020

    In New Petition By Nintendo, Gaming Controller Targeted

    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).

  • June 30, 2020

    Comcast Persuades Board To Cancel Challenged Claims Of Rovi Patent

    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).

  • June 26, 2020

    Microsoft Petition Should Be Denied, Patent Owner Tells Board

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The creators of the “HandlePa” selfie stick defended their invention as patentable in a June 18 filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Microsoft Corp. v. Dareltech LLC, No. IPR2020-00483, PTAB).

  • June 25, 2020

    Cert Denied In Dispute Over Retroactive Inter Partes Review Application

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its June 22 orders list the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that it will not address a petitioner’s assertion that it is unconstitutional to subject patents issued before the establishment by Congress of the inter partes review (IPR) procedure to IPR (Collabo Innovations Inc. v. Sony Corp., No. 19-601, U.S. Sup.).

  • June 25, 2020

    Comcast Challenge To ITC Patent Authority Rejected By High Court

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A petition for certiorari by Comcast Corp. that questioned, among other things, the ability of the International Trade Commission (ITC) to determine whether accused cable set-top boxes infringe two since-expired patents was turned away June 22 by the U.S. Supreme Court (Comcast Corp., et al. v. International Trade Commission, et al., No. 19-1173, U.S. Sup.).

  • June 25, 2020

    With Denial Of Certiorari, ITC Determination Of Patent Infringement Stands

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — One week after denying certiorari in two cases that presented similar questions for review, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 22 rejected a third case involving the “tangential relation” exception to prosecution history estoppel (CJ CheilJedang Corp., CJ CheilJedang Corp., et al. v. International Trade Commission, et al., No. 19-1062, U.S. Sup.).

  • June 19, 2020

    Federal Circuit Upholds Board Determination Of Patent Obviousness

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Four final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that canceled as obvious various claims of two patents directed to networked shared, interactive applications — such as video games — were affirmed June 16 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (PalTalk Holdings Inc. v. Riot Games Inc., No. 19-2035, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18897).

  • June 19, 2020

    Panel Affirms: Patent Owner Barred From Suing Amazon Customers

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A prior dismissal with prejudice of patent infringement allegations against Amazon.com Inc. serves to bar the patent owner from now suing Amazon’s customers, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 17, affirming a California federal judge’s grant of summary judgment in the cases (PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., No. 19-1918, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18939).

  • June 18, 2020

    Panel Again Says Board Erred In Treatment Of Secondary Considerations

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 17 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred when it determined that a crude oil transport patent is obvious without considering the patent owner’s evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness (LiquidPower Specialty Products Inc. v. Baker Hughes, No. 19-1838, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 19016).

  • June 17, 2020

    Contact Processing Method Would Have Been Obvious, Verizon Tells Board

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 16 request for inter partes review (IPR), a petitioner maintains that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should cancel various claims of a patent that, among other things, discloses the display on a mobile device of contact icons in the form of “contact bubbles” that may be combined to form contact groups (Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Huawei Device Co. Ltd., No. IPR2020-01117, PTAB).

  • June 17, 2020

    In Patent Dispute Over Wireless Networking, Mandamus Petition Denied

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 16 shot down a petition for mandamus by Apple Inc., paving the way for a Texas trial on allegations that the software giant infringed various patents through products that support the IEEE 802.11ac wireless networking standard (In re:  Apple Inc., No. 20-127, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18899).

  • June 16, 2020

    Judge Cuts Namenda Attorney Fee From $157.5M to $69.53M As Not Fair, Reasonable

    NEW YORK — Saying that a request for $157.5 million in attorney fees in the Namenda antitrust case is not “fair and reasonable,” a New York federal judge on June 15 reduced the award to $69.53 million (In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 15-7488, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104028).

  • June 16, 2020

    Supreme Court Denies Certiorari In 2+ Patent Disputes Over Estoppel

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court on June 15 announced that it will not weigh in on two related cases that challenge the ability of a patentee to recapture subject matter under the “tangential relation” exception to prosecution history estoppel (Hospira Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, No. 19-1058; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, No. 19-1061, U.S. Sup.).

  • June 15, 2020

    High Court Grants Cert In Patent Case, Remands Pursuant To Thryv

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its June 15 order list the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari that asserted that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in reviewing a threshold determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a challenged patent qualified for covered business method (CBM) review (Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco LLC, No. 19-966, U.S. Sup.).

  • June 15, 2020

    Adverse Final Judgment Won’t Be Reopened, Panel Rules In Patent Row

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A denial by a New York federal judge of a patent owner’s request to reopen a 2014 adverse final judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was neither legally erroneous nor an abuse of discretion, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 12 in a longstanding dispute over coronary stent patents (Medinol Ltd. v. Cordis Corporation, et al., No. 19-1826, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18614).

  • June 12, 2020

    Implantable Glucose Sensor Patent Terms Wrongly Construed, Appellant Says

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 26 corrected opening brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a patent owner urges the court to undo a stipulated judgment of noninfringement entered into after a California federal judge construed various disputed patent terms (Arbmetrics LLC v. Dexcom Inc., No. 20-1510, Fed. Cir.).