WASHINGTON, D.C. — With March 1 oral arguments fast approaching, a surgical supplies manufacturer tells the U.S. Supreme Court in its Feb. 19 reply brief that the administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) qualify as principal officers under the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution and, as such, the rulings in three underlying patent infringement cases should be vacated and remanded to be heard by properly appointed judges.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A surgical device company asks the U.S. Supreme Court to eliminate the doctrine of assignor estoppel in its Feb. 22 petitioner merits brief, calling it an “uncommonly lawless doctrine” that has no support in the Patent Act or controlling case law.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Feb. 24 petition for inter partes review (IPR), Twitter Inc. and Google LLC maintain that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should cancel 19 claims of a patented method for targeting Internet users with advertisements targeted to computer usage.
WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware on Feb. 23 rejected a request by ICON Health & Fitness Inc. for a preliminary injunction barring Peloton from selling its new “Bike+” stationary bicycle.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The maker of the multiple sclerosis (MS) drug Tecfidera in a Feb. 22 appellant brief argues that before deciding whether a federal judge in Delaware erred when ruling that a West Virginia federal judge’s finding of patent invalidity collaterally estops the patent owner from asserting its patent elsewhere, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should first determine whether the collateral estoppel ruling was proper.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 18 appellant brief, a manufacturer of sleep surfaces tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that it should reverse and remand to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board its determination that a patented assembly used to control the pressure in an inflatable mattress and method to inflate the mattress are not obvious.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 19 petition for inter partes review (IPR), HTC Corp. asserts a claimed method for restricting the unauthorized operation of software by storing a license in the basic input/output system (BIOS) memory of a computer would be obvious to a person of skill in the art.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Feb. 19 holding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board turned away a request for inter partes review (IPR) in a dispute over a gaming patent, in view of pending litigation over the same patent in Texas federal court.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 19 opinion, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s affirmance of an examiner’s finding that four claims of a patented process for fracturing the rod that connects the crankshaft to the piston in an internal combustion engine would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Feb. 17 petition for inter partes review (IPR), a pharmaceutical company maintains that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should cancel 19 claims of a patented myopia treatment featuring increased pH stability via substitution of deuterium oxide (D2O) for regular water (H2O).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 19 order, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals turned away a patent owner’s assertion that under the first-to-file rule, it was entitled to dismissal of California federal declaratory judgment actions filed by Apple Inc., AT&T Corp. and Verizon Wireless.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — One week after granting an appellant’s motion to substitute itself in a challenge to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that confirmed a Crocs Inc. footwear patent as not anticipated, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 18 affirmed the board’s patentability determination on the merits.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 18 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in confirming as patentable two independent claims of a patented skin cancer detection, diagnosis and treatment device.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dispute over a patent covering the ornamental design of footwear, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 11 found that transfer of all assets in a bankruptcy proceeding includes the rights in a pending inter partes reexamination (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what it described as a case pertaining to the “narrow question of contract interpretation,” a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 11 agreed with a Texas federal judge that a release granted to an entity and its “affiliates” applies to an appellee, thereby barring the grantor of the release from levying claims of patent infringement.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in New Jersey did not err in finding that a person of skill in the art would not have enjoyed a reasonable expectation of success in combining various prior art references to arrive at a diabetes inhibitor, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Feb. 16.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to Amgen Inc. and two subsidiaries, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 11 upheld findings by a federal judge in Delaware that three claims of two patents that describe antibodies that purportedly lower low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol are invalid for their lack of enablement.
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on Feb. 11 granted a motion by a union health benefit fund to certify a class of purchasers of the Alzheimer’s drug Namenda who were injured by a “pay-for-delay” scheme but denied certification of a class allegedly injured by being forced to switch from an original version of the drug to a newer one.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a two-page order issued Feb. 10, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals announced that it will revisit its October 2020 finding that Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. induced infringement of a reissue patent directed to the treatment of chronic heart failure.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 10 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said it found no error in an Illinois federal judge’s determination that a single claim of a patented golf club shape is invalid as indefinite, in a win for Nike Inc.