WASHINGTON, D.C. — Findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that various claims of two patents covering a computer memory module are unpatentable were vacated and remanded July 25 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Netlist Inc. v. Diablo Technologies Inc., Nos. 16-1742, -1743, -1744 Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13355).
PHOENIX — Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), an Arizona federal judge on July 24 agreed with a patent infringement defendant that the case should proceed in North Carolina (OptoLum Inc. v. Cree Inc., No. 16-3828, D. Ariz., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114717).
SHERMAN, Texas — A request by two defendants for partial summary judgment that five patents are invalid under the on-sale bar articulated in Section 102(b) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), was denied July 24 by a Texas federal judge (Tech Pharmacy Services LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC, et al., No. 15-766, E.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114726).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent directed to methods and systems for receiving and responding to a request for image data would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, Microsoft Corp. contends in a July 20 petition for inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, No. IPR2017-01818, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The three remaining claims of a patent covering a system for monitoring health, wellness and fitness were deemed unpatentable pursuant to Sections 102 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 102, on July 19 by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (FitBit Inc. v. BodyMedia Inc., No. IPR2016-00545, PTAB).
SEATTLE — A request by a patent infringement defendant for reconsideration of a June ruling that denied dismissal of the dispute was denied July 20 by a Washington federal judge (Westech Aerosol Corporation v. ITW Polymers Sealants North America Inc., No. 17-5068, W.D. Wash., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113323).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Delaware federal judge’s determination of invalidity with regard to various claims of a patented product for the treatment of multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma was erroneous, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 17 (Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., Nos. 2015-2066, 2016-1008, -1009, -1010, -1109, -1110, -1283, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12702).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A jury verdict of patent infringement was reversed and remanded by a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 19 after the majority found that a Texas federal judge erroneously construed the disputed claim terms “replacement telephone number,” “modify caller identification data of the call originator” and “outbound call” according to their plain and ordinary meaning (NobelBiz Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C., et al., Nos. 16-1104, -1105, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12946).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California on July 14 granted in part and denied in part Google’s motion to dismiss state and federal misappropriation of trade secrets claims from a lawsuit, ruling that a wireless services and solutions firm has failed to show how Google’s actions violated the terms of a nondisclosure agreement (Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., et al., No. 5:16-cv-03260, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109842).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a July 10 petition for post-grant review (PGR), a pharmaceutical company and a limited liability company that bills itself as a “partner” in inter partes review proceedings alleged that a patent covering an oral, liquid lisinopril formulation should not have been issued (KVK-Tech Inc., et al. v. Silvergate Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. PGR2017-00039, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 13 heard oral arguments in a dispute in which Microsoft Corp. prevailed on allegations that two data-mining patents are indefinite (MasterMine Software Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 16-2465, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Rep. Darrel Issa, R-Calif., on July 13 deemed “reprehensible” a recent interpretation by U.S. Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a July 11 petition for inter partes review filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Mobile Inc. allege that a patent that claims a method of text entry on devices such as handheld computers would have been obvious as of the patent’s priority date of June 2001 (Microsoft Corporation, et al. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., No. IPR2017-01766, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent covering a system that supplies digital signals in a variety of formats to accommodate different types of external units, assigned by its inventors to Sony Corp., would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, several petitioners allege in a July 11 filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ARRIS International plc, et al. v. Sony Corporation, No. IPR2017-01699, PTAB).
WILMINGTON, Del. — An effort by a defendant to obtain dismissal of allegations that it infringed a patented invention that — among other things — would purportedly replace human meter readers was unsuccessful July 11, when a Delaware federal judge ruled that the case should proceed (Smart Meter Technologies Inc. v. Duke Energy Corporation, No. 16-208, D. Del., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106493).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent challenger recently told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “violated a basic tenet of patent law” in turning away allegations of obviousness presented in a petition for inter partes review (IPR) (Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, No. 17-1521, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel of Federal Circuit U.S. Judges Sharon Prost, Raymond T. Chen and Todd M. Hughes heard oral argument on July 10 in a case that asserts that a California federal judge erroneously granted defendant Apple Inc. summary judgment on allegations of patent infringement (Rembrandt Patent Innovations LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-2324, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Texas federal judge’s decision to deny a patent plaintiff permanent injunctive relief, following a jury verdict of infringement, was vacated by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 11 (Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp., et al., No. 17-1148, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12233).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 6 reply brief, a patent owner disputes assertions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that the patent owner’s appeal of an adverse inter partes review (IPR) outcome seeks a narrower claim construction of a temperature limitation that would render various dependent claims superfluous (ZoomEssence Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 17-1581, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Google Inc. prevailed outright in its cross-appeal of an adverse determination of patentability by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, when the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 10 ruled that 11 claims of a touch-screen, image-generating patent were erroneously deemed not anticipated or obvious (Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Nos. 16-1543, -1545, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12234).