WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 16 ruled that a federal district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of PepsiCo Inc. and several of its affiliates on claims that they misappropriated another company’s aroma release technology trade secrets in developing their own in-house technology for failure to plead the necessary causation and damages required to sustain their breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation claims (ScentSational Technologies LLC v. PepsiCo Inc., et al., No. 2018-2091, Fed. Cir. 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14477).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a requested amicus curiae brief filed May 9, the U.S. solicitor general tells the U.S. Supreme Court that a “patent risk management” company that initiated an unsuccessful inter partes review (IPR) of another company’s patent did not have standing to appeal the results of the review to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals because it had no interest in the patent and had suffered no injury from the IPR (RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, No. 17-1686, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A petition for inter partes review (IPR) of 19 claims of a patented system for recording medical data was instituted May 15 by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found that a petitioner demonstrated a “reasonable likelihood” that it will prevail on its allegation of obviousness (Altamont Software Inc. v. Sorna Corporation, No. IPR2019-00218, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Intel Corp. recently told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that contrary to allegations made in a February appellant brief, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly declared all challenged claims of a voltage regulator patent obvious (R2 Semiconductor Inc. v. Intel Corporation, No. 19-1031, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A New Jersey federal judge’s finding that two patents covering the pain-reliever drug “Vimovo” are adequately described under Section 112 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112, was reversed May 15 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Nuvo Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 17-2473, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14345).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent directed to determining a name for a file based on a function of the file contents and determining whether the file is present on a computer would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, PayPal Inc. asserts in a May 14 request for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PayPal Inc., et al. v. PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, No. IPR2019-01093, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patented method of using the compound everolimus to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was confirmed as valid May 13 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a win for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Novartis AG (Novartis, collectively) (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., et al. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., No. 18-1434, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14122).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 9 brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, an appellant maintains that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in deeming 18 claims of a patented apparatus for improving solid-state imaging devices obvious (Collabo Innovations Inc. v. Sony Corporation, No. 19-1152, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 13 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld two final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that declared technology relating to a process for retrieving largescale images in low-bandwidth conditions unpatentable as obvious (Bradium Technologies Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, as Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Nos. 2017-2579, -2580, Fed. Cir.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — In a May 9 decision a Delaware federal judge agreed with a patent defendant that a plaintiff’s claims of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents are barred by the disclosure-dedication doctrine (Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC, No. 18-1953, D. Del., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78146).
SAN FRANCISCO — Allegations that Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. infringe a patent relating to data indexing will proceed, a California federal judge ruled May 9, lifting a stay entered in 2013 (Software Rights Archive LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. 12-3970; Software Rights Archive LLC v. Twitter Inc., No. 12-3972, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79674).
LOS ANGELES — In a May 9 order, a California federal judge ruled that cancellation of four claims of a ridesharing patent by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board renders pre-existing infringement litigation over the same patent moot (Transport Technologies LLC v. L.A. Metro Transportation Authority, No. 15-6423, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78793).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal judge’s determination that a Sandoz Inc. filgrastim biosimilar and proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar product do not infringe an Amgen patent relating to Neupogen and Neulasta was not erroneous, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 8 (Amgen Inc., et al., v. Sandoz Inc., No. 18-1551, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13738).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent belonging to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) that claims a searchable database using natural language input recites subject matter that would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, Amazon.com Inc. asserts in a May 7 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Amazon.com Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, No. IPR2019-01069, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a May 6 petition for inter partes review (IPR), Renesas Electronics Corp. maintains before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that seven claims of a Broadcom Inc. patent should be canceled (Renesas Electronics Corporation v. Broadcom Inc., No. IPR2019-01040, PTAB).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A Pennsylvania federal judge on May 6 held that a commercial general liability insurer has a duty to defend Hershey Creamery Co. against an underlying lawsuit alleging that the ice cream manufacturer unlawfully copied a competitor’s self-serve milkshake machine and its related marketing designs, display and verbiage (Hershey Creamery Company v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-694, M.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75760).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 3 divided ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a Delaware federal judge’s findings that assertions of patent invalidity raised by two generic drug makers in connection with the painkiller Opana fail (Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Actavis LLC, et al., No. 18-1054, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348).
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A federal jury in Rhode Island on May 3 awarded an Italian company $6.5 million in damages after finding that its former employee and competitor misappropriated certain of its trade secret information for its erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) analyzer technology (Alifax Holding SpA v. Alcor Scientific Inc., et al., No. 14-440, D. R.I.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 1 upheld a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that adopted an examiner’s rejection of three claims of a patent application relating to electroplating metals or alloys (In re: Uri Cohen, No. 18-1609, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13133).
SAN FRANCISCO — Although agreeing with a California federal magistrate judge that copyright claims levied against Microsoft Corp. that involve conduct taking place before the filing of a 2013 patent infringement action are subject to claim preclusion, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 2 found that a plaintiff may proceed with allegations that the software giant continued to infringe its copyrights through sales taking place after the patent case was filed (Media Rights Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-16509, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13239).