WILMINGTON, Del. — U.S. Judge Richard G. Andrews of the District of Delaware on May 22 turned away a constitutional challenge to the covered business method (CBM) review procedure established in 2011 by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), 112 P.L. 29, 125 Stat. 284 (Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 16-281, D. Del.).
NEW YORK — In a May 18 ruling, a New York federal judge found that infringement allegations over an internet advertising patent were sufficiently meritless to justify an award of attorney fees, noting that the patent owner’s exceptional conduct “pervaded” the litigation (TNS Media Research LLC v. TiVo Research and Analytics Inc., No. 11-4039, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84165).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent that purportedly digitized the formerly manual process of using a pencil and paper to submit films for consideration at a film festival would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSA), according to a May 17 petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (FilmFestivalPanda.com LLC v. IMDB.com Inc., No. IPR2018-01109, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Wisconsin federal judge’s decision to grant, post-trial, a defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that various claims of a patent directed to a telephone relay system (TRS) are invalid as obvious was erroneous, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded May 18 (Ultratec Inc., et al., v Sorenson Communications Inc., Nos. 2017-1161, -1225, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 13035).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A manufacturer and marketer of robotic surgical products asserts in a May 16 petition for inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that an Ethicon LLC patent relating to a surgical system involving a remote user-controlled actuation console would have been rendered obvious or anticipated by prior art (Intuitive Surgical Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, No. IPR2018-00938, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that two patents directed to optimized image delivery over limited bandwidth communications channels would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSA) was based on an erroneous claim construction, the patent owner maintains in a recent appeal to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Bradium Technologies Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, as Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Nos. 2017-2579, -2580, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — U.S. Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California on May 16 issued revised, tentative jury instructions one day after opening arguments were held in the retrial on damages due in connection with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.’s infringement of three Apple smartphone design patents (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 11-1846, N.D. Calif.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a May 15 brief, a patent owner urges the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reject an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s invocation of “issue joinder” as grounds for seeking IPR outside the statutorily mandated one-year window (Proppant Express Investments LLC v. Oren Technologies LLC, No. IPR2018-00914, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an appellant brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Unisone Strategic IP Inc. maintains that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erroneously invoked its authority to review a system for electronic inventory tracking as a covered business method (CBM) patent (Unisone Strategic IP Inc. v. Life Technologies Corporation, No. 17-2471, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — For the second day in a row, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 15 granted mandamus to overturn decisions by the Eastern District of Texas, which denied requests for dismissal or transfer of patent infringement allegations for improper venue under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (In re: BigCommerce Inc., Nos. 18-120, -122, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12591).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 14 clarified two “basic” and “undecided” issues relating to “proper judicial administration in the wake of” TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017); according to the panel, Federal Circuit law governs the burden of proof for determining the propriety of venue under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), and the burden rests with a patent infringement plaintiff (In re: ZTE USA Inc., No. 18-113, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12498).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patented tubular seat and tubular actuating system for use in oil and gas fracturing is rendered obvious and anticipated by various prior art, according to a May 10 petition for inter partes review filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations LLC, No. IPR2018-01030, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its May 14 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a patent case, vacating a judgment by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals as moot and instructing the Federal Circuit to remand to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for dismissal (PNC Bank National Association, et al., v. Secure Axcess LLC, No. 17-350, U.S. Sup.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — In a May 11 order, a California federal judge stayed patent infringement allegations levied by the Regents of the University of Minnesota pending the outcome of inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, citing the university’s own activities before the board as cutting against any claim that a stay would be prejudicial (Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, et al., No. 18-821, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80252).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal judge did not err in finding that a nationwide provider of health care services for patients with AIDS lacks declaratory judgment standing to maintain an action against the brand name manufacturer of drugs containing tenofir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 11 (AIDS Healthcare Foundation Inc. v. Gilead Sciences Inc., et al., No. 16-2475, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Mylan Laboratories Ltd. on April 24 defended a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which deemed obvious various claims of an Aventis Pharma S.A. patent covering a method of using cabazitaxel to treat prostate cancer patients following treatment with docetaxel (Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Mylan Laboratories Ltd., No. 18-1203, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although affirming findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that several claims of a method for remote monitoring and control of irrigation equipment with handheld devices would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 9 reversed the board’s finding that one claim was not unpatentable (Valmont Industries Inc. v. Lindsay Corporation, Nos. 17-1235, -1288, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 30 appellee brief, Google Inc. urges the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reject a patent owner’s appeal of an adverse covered business method (CBM) review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board because the patents at issue “are directed to the most abstract of ideas — a way to structure a contract for advertising services” (Performance Pricing Holdings LLC v. Google Inc., No. 18-1189, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a final written decision issued May 8, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that 19 claims of a method for ablating an organ are unpatentable for failure to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S. Code Section 112(a) (Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc., No. PGR2017-00002, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a 20-page precedential order issued May 9 the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected claims by HTC Corp., a Taiwanese entity, that a Delaware federal judge erred in failing to apply the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), to its motion to dismiss for improper venue (In re: HTC Corporation, No. 18-130, Fed. Cir.).