WASHINGTON, D.C. — A company on Sept. 11 filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to the confirmation of a $442 million arbitration award issued against it in a dispute over patent infringement, asking the court to review whether a federal court must independently determine if enforcement of an award under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., violates U.S. public policy (Dow Agrosciences LLC, et al. v. Bayer Cropscience NV, No. 17-372, U.S. Sup., 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3444).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Michigan federal judge did not abuse her discretion in dismissing patent invalidity defenses and counterclaims in a dispute over soffit panels but did err in granting the patent owner a summary judgment of infringement and permanent injunction, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 15 (Quality Edge Inc. v. Rollex Corporation, No. 17-1005, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17855).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A concession by two declaratory judgment defendants that they currently hold no title to a patent portfolio and that they will not hold title until a court determines otherwise are fatal to two declaratory judgment plaintiffs’ assertion of federal subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute over ownership of the same patent portfolio, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Sept. 15 (First Data Corporation et al. v. Eric Inselberg et al., Nos. 2016-2677, -2696, Fed. Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California on Sept. 11 granted a hookah bowl maker’s motion for default judgment against a hookah retailer and awarded the plaintiff $105,600 in damages, which includes attorney fees (Albert Kirakosian, et al. v. J&L Sunset Wholesale & Tobacco, et al., No. 2:16-cv-06097, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147715).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An examiner’s decision — later upheld by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) — that a proposed U-shaped design for a locking channel is unprotectable as functional in light of several expired utility patents will be debated Oct. 4 before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (In re: Openings, No. 16-2307, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — An expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Sept. 6 announced that it won’t reconsider its decision to deny five separate requests for inter partes review by General Plastic Industrial Co. Ltd., saying “multiple, staggered petition filings, such as those here, are an inefficient use of the inter partes review process and the Board’s resources” (General Plastic Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Nos. IPR2016-01357, IPR2016-01358, IPR2016-01359, IPR2016-01360, IPR2016-01361, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Sept. 14 ruling, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. enjoys a reasonable likelihood of proving that various claims of a patented system and method of controlling a train are unpatentable (Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. v. Siemens Industries Inc., No. IPR2017-00981, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a pair of Sept. 5 respondent briefs, the interim director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and a patent holder tell the U.S. Supreme Court that when the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) institutes inter partes review (IPR) of the validity of patent claims, it is not required to review or rule on every patent claim asserted in a party’s petition for review (SAS Institute Inc. v. Joseph Matal, et al., No. 16-969, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 4 will hear oral arguments in a case that poses the question of whether safe harbor protection for clinical activities can be repealed based upon the use of data derived subsequent to approval (Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 17-1033, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Sept. 11 petition for inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Mentor Graphics Corp. takes aim at a patent directed to a method and apparatus for semiconductor testing, asserting that generating test data and identifying an outlier in the test data “was well known” in the art (Mentor Graphics Corporation v. Eric Paul Tabor, No. IPR2017-02094, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, following inter partes review (IPR), did not err in deeming all 17 claims of a patented eyewear retention device obvious to a person of skill in the art, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 12 (Cablz Inc. v. Chums Inc., et al., No. 16-1823, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17561).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A dispute over the eligibility of a patented method for identifying “unauthorized” files, such as those that contain offensive or illegal content, will be argued before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 3 (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Company, et al., No. 17-1147, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In oral arguments on Sept. 8, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard an appeal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that two claims of a patented tissue graft composed of the two primary layers of the human placenta patent would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA) (MiMedx Group Inc. v. Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, No. 17-1043, Fed. Cir.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — In briefs filed Sept. 8 in response to a California federal judge’s directive after rulings and remand orders from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. address questions about how to determine what the relevant “article of manufacture” is of products accused infringing a design patent and, relatedly, how to identify profits attributable to the article (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 5:11-cv-01846, N.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Florida federal judge did not abuse his discretion or err in entering a final judgment of trademark and patent infringement against a defendant accused of selling a competing, knockoff hydradermabrasion system, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 8 (Edge Systems LLC, et al. v. Rafael Newton Aguila, No. 16-2189, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17365).
LAS VEGAS — On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, a Nevada federal judge on Sept. 6 again denied a prevailing patent infringement plaintiff enhanced damages, even under the Supreme Court’s newly announced standard for such awards (Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc., et al., No. 07-331, D. Nev., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143737).
TRENTON, N.J. — Allegations of infringement involving a patented laser light decorative lighting apparatus should proceed in Minnesota federal court, a New Jersey federal judge ruled Sept. 6 (Telebrands Corp. v. Seasonal Specialties, No. 17-3390, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143900).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 6 upheld findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a patented apparatus and method for cryptographic processing with the serial advanced technology attachment (SATA) protocol is unpatentable under Section 103 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Enova Technology Corp. v. Seagate Technology LLC, et al., No. 16-1749, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17173).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A claimed centralized control system for the management of distribution and sales of electricity in a spot market was targeted for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a Sept. 6 petition (Electric Reliability Council of Texas v. GRID Innovations LLC, No. IPR2017-02033, PTAB).
MARSHALL, Texas — An expert can opine that accused patent infringer T-Mobile “made” a product, rather than just “used” it, but cannot testify that the company never enabled a restoration feature because it was advised against doing so by counsel, a Texas federal magistrate judge ruled Sept. 4 (Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-00052, E.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142606).