ALEXANDRIA, Va. — On the heels of its Feb. 16 ruling that granted inter partes review (IPR) of one claim of a hovercraft patent, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was asked March 15 to also review several other claims of the same patent on anticipation grounds (Parrot S.A., et al. v. QFO Labs Inc., No. IPR2017-01089, PTAB).
LAS VEGAS — A federal magistrate judge in Nevada on March 21 granted a protective order in a negligence lawsuit to facilitate discovery exchanges and establishing a procedure for the filing of documents that include trade secrets and other confidential information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) (Sonia Fernandez-Valdez v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., No. 16-2464, D. Nev., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40492).
TYLER, Texas — In a patent infringement lawsuit, an expert may provide opinions “based on his technical knowledge and expertise” as to the technical advantages of a claimed process of forming circuitry used in controlling liquid crystal displays (LCDs), a Texas federal magistrate judge ruled March 22 (Eidos Display LLC and Eidos III LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., et al., No. 11-00201, E.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41040).
NEW ORLEANS — A dismissal with prejudice of a complaint seeking a declaration of patent noninfringement and that no trade secrets were misappropriated was correct, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 20 in a dispute over gas-to-liquid (GTL) conversion technology (Sasol North America Inc., et al. v. GTLPetrol LLC, No. 16-20122, 5th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5107).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 21 affirmed a lower federal court’s $6,080,568 judgment in favor of an insured in a breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit against its excess general liability insurer arising from an underlying patent infringement dispute (Teleflex Medical Incorporated v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 14-56366, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A tribunal for the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on March 20 issued its final award in a dispute over Canadian drug patents, dismissing all of a pharmaceutical company's claims and finding that the invalidation of the patents by Canadian courts did not constitute violations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada, No. UNCT/14/2, ICSID).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The doctrine of patent exhaustion is not avoidable by attaching post-sale restrictions, an attorney for a patent infringement defendant told the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 (Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc., No. 15-1189, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Delaware federal judge did not abuse her discretion in determining that a failed patent case by Bayer Cropscience AG was exceptional, thereby triggering an award of attorney fees, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded March 17 (Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, No. 15-1854, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4723).
MARSHALL, Texas — Although a urologist’s testimony on the inefficacy of natural and herbal remedies was barred in a patent infringement case over a drug’s marketing, a Texas federal judge on March 17 allowed the urologist to testify as to the drug’s marketing (Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Co., No. 15-1202, E.D. Texas; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38512).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a 7-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 rejected findings by a divided en banc Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the equitable defense of laches remains available even when a claim for damages is brought within the six-year limitations period set forth in Section 286 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag and SCA Personal Care, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al., No. 15-927, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Acting on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 17 found that a patent dispute requires a new trial on damages in light of Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016) (Nordock Inc. v. Systems Inc., Nos. 14-1762, -1795, Fed. Cir.; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4732).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A North Carolina federal judge’s determination that all claims of a hair growth patent are invalid was reversed March 17 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Allergan Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., Nos. 16-1085, -1160, Fed. Cir.; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4733).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Amgen Inc. filed its opening and response brief on March 10 in its high-stakes suit with Sandoz Inc., arguing that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals did not err by requiring biosimilar makers to get approval before supplying 180-day notice of sales to rivals because permitting notice before approval is consistent with “early resolution of patent disputes” (Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing Ltd., No. 15-1039, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent owner in a Feb. 28 petition for writ of certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if patent claims directed to concrete and tangible inventions, “which are neither directed to a mathematical algorithm nor a business method,” are eligible subject matter under step one of the framework in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Digital Services Inc., No. 16-1047, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Noting that the U.S. Supreme has found the “abstract idea” exception to 35 U.S. Code Section 101 to be a doctrine of restraint, a patent owner asks the court in a Feb. 27 petition to address whether patent claims directed to concrete and tangible inventions, “which are neither directed to a mathematical algorithm nor a business method,” are eligible subject matter under step one of the framework in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DIRECTTV LLC, et al., No. 16-1046, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to affirm some rejections while reversing the non-rejection of other claims of a remote monitoring system and method patent should be vacated, patent owner Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems Inc. recently argued to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems Inc. v. Medtronic Inc., No. 17-1031, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a March 13 ruling the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of eight claims of a patent covering, among other things, a transceiver with sleep mode for reduced power consumption (DISH Network LLC v. TQ Delta LLC, No. IPR2016-01760, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congress has defined "residence" "[f]or all venue purposes" and "venue" to include the patent venue statute, Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC argues in a March 1 respondent brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, further asserting that this definition is the controlling one and, thus, a defendant resides in the District of Delaware for a patent infringement suit (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. — Following a July 2016 decision that upheld a preliminary injunction in favor of a patent owner, a subsequent appeal by the patent owner of a final judgment of noninfringement rendered in the same case will also soon be argued before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp., No. 17-1010, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Efforts by Ford Motor Co. to invalidate a patented system and method for consolidating multiple product configuration models pursuant to the covered business method (CBM) review mechanism were unsuccessful on March 15, when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Ford’s petition (Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Development Group Inc., No. CBM2016-00101, PTAB).