WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Nevada federal judge’s decision to award Halo Electronics Inc. prejudgment interest in a patent dispute is not appealable, because a final judgment has not yet been entered in the case, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 26 (Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc., No. 16-2006, Fed. Cir.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — In remand briefs filed May 12 in California federal court, Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. argue over whether a $399 infringer’s profits award related to smartphone design patents should stand or whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the “article of manufacture” theory of infringement merits a new trial to determine the portion of Samsung’s profits directly attributable to the infringing components (Apple Inc. v, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 5:11-cv-01846, N.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Washington federal judge did not err in rejecting allegations that Amazon.com Inc. infringes the intellectual property of others through its online marketplace and “Fulfillment by Amazon” service, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 23 (Milo & Gabby LLC, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 16-1290, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8932).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent covering three process categories commonly used in the fabrication of semiconductor devices would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, a petitioner for inter partes review told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on May 22 (SPTS Technologies Ltd. v. Plasma-Therm LLC, No. IPR2017-01457, PTAB).
TRENTON, N.J. — A dispute over plans by Sandoz Inc. and Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Sandoz, collectively) to sell generic Copaxone will proceed in Delaware federal court, a New Jersey federal judge ruled May 22 (Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., No. 17-275, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77193).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although a Texas federal judge erred in barring the manufacture and sale of an accused generic form of the lymph-node-mapping dye isosulfan blue (ISB) with regard to two patents, relief was proper with regard to a third patent, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 19 (Mylan Institutional LLC, et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., No. 17-1645, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8792).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Changes by Congress to the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), did not modify the meaning of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), as interpreted in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 226 (1957), to mean that a domestic corporation “resides” only in its state of incorporation, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled May 22 (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 divided June 2016 ruling by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board need not address in a final written decision the patentability of all claims identified in a petition for inter partes review (IPR) will be reviewed, the U.S. Supreme Court announced May 22 (SAS Institute Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and ComplementSoft LLC, No. 16-969, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Claims 1-20 of a proposed patented method for quick content channel discovery, streaming content and switching from one content stream to another with minimal latency were rejected May 18 by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Ex parte Mika Kuulusa, No. 2016-007047, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that rejected assertions by Medtronic Inc. that two patents directed to methods and systems for ameliorating aberrant spinal column deviations are unpatentable should stand, an inventor told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 16 (Medtronic Inc. v. Mark A. Barry, Nos. 17-1169, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on May 17 issued a final written decision declaring seven claims of a data optimization patent unpatentable as obvious (Google Inc. v. Vedanti Systems Ltd., No. 2016-00212, PTAB).
CHICAGO — Trademark infringement plaintiff Solo Cup Operating Corp. on May 17 won dismissal of counterclaims that Solo’s complaint is preempted by the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., when an Illinois federal judge agreed that a product configuration disclosed in an expired utility patent can nonetheless be entitled to trade dress protection (Solo Cup Operating Corporation v. Lollicup USA Inc., No. 16-8041, N.D. Ill., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74922).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a divided May 16 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found no error in a Delaware federal judge’s decision to invalidate two claims of a reissue patent directed to a boron-containing steel sheet (ArcelorMittal, et al. v. AK Steel Corp., et al., No. 16-1357, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8565).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In three petitions for covered business method (CBM) review filed May 15 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Yahoo! Inc. asserts that various claims of patents relating to targeted advertising cover ineligible subject matter (Yahoo! Inc. v. AlmondNet Inc., No. CBM2017-00050, PTAB).
SAN FRANCISCO — Finding “compelling evidence” that a former Waymo LLC employee misappropriated confidential files and provided them to Uber Technologies Inc., a California federal judge on May 15 granted in part Waymo’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering Uber to cease using any of the stolen materials in the development of its self-driving car technology (Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00939, N.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — Efforts by Comcast Corp. to enjoin patent allegations pending against it before the International Trade Commission (ITC) were again unsuccessful on May 15, when a New York federal judge refused to reconsider an earlier order denying a preliminary injunction (Comcast Corporation v. Rovi Corporation, No. 16-3852, S.D. N.Y., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73669).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Delaware federal judge’s award of $2.5 million in attorney fees in connection with a successful defense of an equity action alleging fraud upon the court was not an abuse of discretion, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 11 (NOVA Chemicals Corp., et al. v. Dow Chemical Co., No. 16-1576, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8338).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A request by a patent licensee for en banc hearing of an appeal over the right of third parties to challenge patents in a petition for inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was denied May 11 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Cascades Projection LLC v. Epson America Inc., et al., Nos. 17-1517, -1518, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8337).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A New York federal judge properly granted Twitter Inc. a summary judgment that five direct message publishing patents claim ineligible subject matter, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 12 (EasyWeb Innovations LLC v. Twitter Inc., No. 16-2066, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8436).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The legislative arm of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) on Feb. 7 issued a memorandum that proposed changes to the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, “to restore the scope of patent eligible subject matter that has been restricted” by the U.S. Supreme Court in several recent decisions the IPO deemed “bad law.”