ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Feb. 22 found that Apple Inc. has established a likelihood that it will prevail on assertions that various claims of a virtual private network (VPN) patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., No. IPR2016-01585, PTAB).
MARSHALL, Texas — A Texas federal judge on Feb. 21 partially granted a motion to exclude testimony on damages in a patent infringement case, but found that most of the expert's opinions did not justify exclusion under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. before trial (Saint Lawrence Communications LLC v. ZTE Corp., et al., No. 2:15-cv-349, E.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23505).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a computer security patent is obvious never should have been reached because the board erroneously determined that the invention at issue qualifies as a covered business method (CBM), a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 21 (Secure Axcess LLC v. PNC Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-1353, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in finding that the supply of one component of a five-component genetic testing kit manufactured abroad triggers domestic patent liability under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Feb. 22 (Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., No. 14-1538, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal judge properly dismissed allegations that Sprint Nextel Corp., Apple Inc., Twitter Inc. and others infringed two patents directed to data processing on grounds that the patents in suit are invalid under the Patent Act, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded Feb. 17 (Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., Nos. 2016-1188, -1190, -1191, -1192, -1194, -1195, -1197, -1198, -1199, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2784).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 17 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that two claims of a sound reproduction patent are unpatentable as obvious but also reversed the board’s determination that a third claim would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (Slot Speaker Technologies Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 15-2038, -2039, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2785).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent issued to the California Institute of Technology covering channel coding and error-correcting codes would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, Apple Inc. asserts in a Feb. 16 petition for inter partes review filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology, No. IPR2017-00702, PTAB).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Feb. 14 granted Samsung’s motion to dismiss trade secret misappropriation claims in a lawsuit challenging the ownership of augmented reality technology, finding that these claims under California and New York law are barred by their respective statutes of limitations (GeoVector Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 16-02463, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20872).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In response to a petition asking for a U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether inter partes review (IPR) violates the U.S. Constitution, an oilfield services company argues in a Jan. 30 opposition brief that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals “has repeatedly and correctly rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from correcting its own error in issuing a patent that fails the statutory requirements” (Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, No. 16-712, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 6 heard oral arguments in a dispute over the cancer-fighting prodrug Velcade, following findings in 2015 by a Delaware federal judge that the patent covering the pharmaceutical composition is invalid (Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., Nos. 2015-2066, 2016-1008, -1009, -1010, -1109, -1110, -1283, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A Novartis AG patent covering a tumor treatment will not be the subject of an upcoming inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board announced Feb. 13 (Roxane Laboratories Inc. v. Novartis AG, No. IPR2016-01461, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court should review an appellate court ruling that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) final decision in an inter partes review (IPR) did not need to address every challenged patent claim but rather only some, an analytic software developer says in a Jan. 31 petition (SAS Institute Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and ComplementSoft LLC, No. 16-969, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A producer and supplier of liquid water enhancers and zero calorie sweeteners argues in a Jan. 30 brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that its interpretation of the statutory phrase “the judicial district where the defendant resides” “mean[s] the state of incorporation only” and that the venue is “not to be supplemented” by other provisions (TC Heartland LLC d/b/a Heartland Food Products Group v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A rejection by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of patent invalidity allegations with regard to 16 claims of a system and method for gathering website feedback was affirmed Feb. 13 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Qualtrics LLC v. OpinionLab Inc., No. 16-1177, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A January affirmance without opinion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a dispute over the results of an inter partes review should be reheard, the patent owner told the Federal Circuit Feb. 9 (Leak Surveys Inc. v. FLIR Systems Inc., Nos. 16-1299, -1300, Fed. Cir.).
HOUSTON — A dispute over two design patents covering ornamental women’s sandals should be litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York where an infringement defendant is headquartered, a Texas federal judge concluded Feb. 10 (JPT Group LLC v. Balenciaga America Inc., No. 16-1596, S.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19003).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Florida federal judge erred in concluding that an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) satisfies various Markush group requirements set forth in claim 1(b) of a drug composition patent, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 10 (Shire Development LLC, et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., No. 16-1785, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2393).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — An examiner’s rejection of 24 claims of a patent application directed to a technique for ensuring link aggregation congruency was reversed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Feb. 10 (Ex parte Janos Farkas, et al., No. 2016-006007, PTAB).
PHOENIX — Allegations that two defendants infringed three patents relating to a process known as “singulation” will proceed in Florida federal court, where a separate case implicating the same three patents is already pending, an Arizona federal judge ruled Feb. 8 (ON Semiconductor Corporation, et al. v. Micro Processing Technology Inc., No. 16-1055, D. Ariz.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17753).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Feb. 7 granted leave for an electronics company to amend its complaint to add a claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) (VIA Technologies, Inc., et al. v. ASUS Computer International, et al., No. 14-cv-03586, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17384).