WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in California erred in declaring four patents relating to voice over internet protocol (VoIP) technology ineligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §101, the patent owner maintains in a Feb. 24 appellant brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (VoIP-Pal.com Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 20- 1241, 20-1244, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a March 31 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that a system and method for blending butane into gasoline streams at any point along a petroleum pipeline is unpatentable (Magellan Midstream Partners LP v. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P., No. IPR2019-00025, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 31 reached the merits of and ultimately affirmed a Texas federal judge’s construction of various disputed claims in a fracking patent, after rejecting a challenge to the court’s appellate jurisdiction (EnerPol LLC v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., Nos. 2019-1079, -1120, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a March 30 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board canceled all 14 challenged claims of a patent directed to a bandwidth-sensitive data compression system, in a win for Netflix Inc. (Netflix Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, No. IPR2018-01817, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 25 appellee brief, the two named inventors of a patented treatment for castration resistant prostate cancer defend the rejection by a California federal judge of an appellant’s assertion that he is a co-inventor (Degui Chen v. Michael Jung, et al., No. 20-1255, Fed. Cir.).
RICHMOND, Va. —The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 27 agreed with a North Carolina federal judge that an appellant’s claimed trade dress for its chicken feeder is functional, and thus qualifies for protection only via utility patent (CTB Inc. v. Hog Slat Inc., No. 18-2107, 4th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9642).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent owner’s request for rehearing of a recent decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that denied a stay or termination of nine inter partes reviews (IPRs) of six patents was denied March 25 by the board (Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Rovi Guides Inc., Nos. IPR2019-00224, IPR2019-00231, IPR2019-00237, IPR2019-00239, IPR2019-00281, IPR2019-00290, IPR2019-00292, IPR2019-00299, IPR2019-00555, PTAB).
SAN FRANCISCO — Allegations that Google LLC willfully infringed a patent covering a portable QWERTY keyboard were dismissed March 26 by a federal judge in California, but the patent owner was granted leave to amend (Google LLC v. Princeps Secundus LLC, No. 19-6566, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52753).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — A request for summary judgment by the maker of an accused bridesmaid gown was denied March 24 by a federal judge in Kansas, who rejected as “not well taken” arguments by the defendant that trade dress infringement claims are preempted by the patent clause of the U.S. Constitution (Jenny Yoo Collection Inc. v. Essense of Australia Inc., No. 17-2666, D. Kan., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50486).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Citing a lack of “particularized testimony,” the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 25 reversed findings by a Delaware federal judge that two patents are infringed under the doctrine of equivalents by a proposed treatment of low-dose doxycycline for acne or rosacea (Galderma Laboratories L.P., et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al., No. 19-1021, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9341).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Citing a planned December 2020 trial in California federal court, a patent owner in a March 23 response asks the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to exercise its discretionary authority and deny institution of inter partes review (LG Electronics Inc. v. Bell Northern Research LLC, No. IPR2019-00319, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 27 appellant brief, the owner of a patented method of removing debris from the edges of the eyelid argues that a Texas federal judge erred in relying on a dictionary definition of “swab” during claim construction, leading to a stipulation of infringement (BlephEx LLC v. Pain Point Medical Systems Inc., No. 20-1187, Fed. Cir.).
DALLAS — In a March 20 ruling, a federal judge in Texas denied efforts by three plaintiffs to obtain dismissal of allegations that they engaged in inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) when securing two hoverboard patents (Unicorn Global Inc., et al. v. GoLabs Inc., et al., No. 19-754, N.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48315).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 23 denied panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of a dispute over the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board administrative patent judges (APJs), in an order that spawned two concurrences and three dissents (Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc., et al., No. 18-2140, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9026).
WACO, Texas — Efforts by four defendants associated with the “Bumble” dating app to obtain dismissal of allegations they infringed three patents and the “Swipe” trademark were unsuccessful March 18, when a federal judge in Texas instead ruled the case should proceed (Match Group LLC v. Bumble Holding Limited, et al., No. 18-80, W.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46656).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The owner of a patented technique for controlling vehicle engine output maintains in a March 17 preliminary response filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that efforts by Volkswagen Group of America Inc. to cancel various claims of the patent should fail (Volkswagen Group of America Inc. v. Michigan Motor Technologies LLC, No. IPR2020-00169, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 18 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in allowing Facebook Inc. to join two subsequent inter partes reviews (IPRs) to two existing IPRs and, in so doing, introducing new patent claims to the proceedings (Facebook Inc. v. Windy City Innovations LLC, Nos. 2018-1400, -1401, -1402, -1403, -1537, -1540, -1541, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8522).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although reversing and remanding a New Jersey federal judge’s determination that various claims of one patent covering a type of treating type 2 diabetes mellitus is drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 16 upheld a bench trial judgment that claims of two other patents in suit are invalid for obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., No. 19-1172, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8393).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a ruling issued March 17, a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed with a California federal judge that various claims of two patents relating to separating fetal DNA from maternal DNA in cell-free DNA floating in a mother’s bloodstream are directed to an ineligible natural phenomenon (Illumina Inc., et al. v. Ariosa Diagnostics Inc., et al., No. 19-1419, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8327).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Just over one week after it sued a biotechnology company and its subsidiary for patent infringement in Delaware federal court, the owner of two patents relating to biological fluid testing said in a statement March 17 that it would grant royalty-free licenses to third parties who use its patented technology while developing tests for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (Labrador Diagnostics LLC v. Biofire Diagnostics LLC, et al., No. 20-348, D. Del.).