WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 22 upheld the claim construction of various disputed terms proffered by a California federal judge in a win for Apple Inc. (Rembrandt Patent Innovations LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-2324, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Nov. 17 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Microsoft Corp. challenged the patentability of seven claims of a patented remote control with an auto-zoom feature, which allows for easier button selection on a touch screen (Microsoft Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. IPR2018-00185, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although affirming a California federal judge’s determination that various claims of a capacitor patent are not indefinite under Section 112 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 21 reversed an award of lost profits and grant of permanent injunctive relief in the case (Presidio Components Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp., Nos. 16-2607, -2650, Fed. Cir.).
SHERMAN, Texas — A company has properly stated a claim for relief in seeking declaratory relief against several former employees and its direct competitor for alleged trade secret misappropriation and patent and copyright infringement, among other things, and its claims under the Copyright Act provide a federal district court with federal question jurisdiction, a federal judge in Texas ruled Nov. 20 in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Performance Pulsation Control Inc. v. Sigma Drilling Technologies LLC, et al., No. 17-0450, E.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191530).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware federal magistrate judge on Nov. 20 recommended that allegations that WhatsApp Inc. infringed two electronic messaging patents should proceed, rejecting a request for dismissal on grounds of patent ineligibility (TriPlay Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc., No. 13-1703, D. Del., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191330).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A judgment of patent invalidity based upon findings that certain language in a patented catalytic conversion system is indefinite was reversed Nov. 20 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (BASF Corporation v. Johnson Matthey Inc., No. 16-1770, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 17 turned away an inventor’s challenge to a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that rejected — as anticipated — various claims of a patent application (In re: C. Douglass Thomas, No. 17-1100, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23135).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Florida federal judge’s decision to dismiss a patent infringement complaint without prejudice following a plaintiff’s delayed efforts to add a co-inventor was upheld by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 17 (Cobra International Inc. v. BCNY International Inc., et al., Nos. 16-2103, -2173, -2635, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23133).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that granted priority was “logically inconsistent” with other findings by the board that the reference that triggered priority was not anticipatory of an interfering patent, the party asserting anticipation recently told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Otonomy Inc. v. Auris Medical AG, Nos. 17-1850, -1880, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 9 will hear oral arguments in a case that seeks to clarify the extent to which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is permitted, under the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute, 35 U.S.C. § 154(b), to reduce an applicant’s PTA (Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 17-1357, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Opposing Google LLC’s petition for certiorari in a Nov. 9 brief, a mobile technology firm tells the U.S. Supreme Court that, per the America Invents Act (AIA), the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has authority to review and reverse patent ineligibility determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) made during a covered business method (CBM) review (Google LLC v. Unwired Planet LLC., No. 17-357, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A recent ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that established a series of factors to consider when multiple petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of one patent are filed by one party should not have been relied on by the board in turning away a petition for IPR in October, the petitioner asserts in a Nov. 13 request for rehearing (NetApp Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC, No. IPR2017-01196, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In granting a petition for mandamus by Micron Technology Inc. on Nov. 14, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals resolved lingering uncertainty following the May 2017 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, deeming the case an intervening change of law (In re: Micron Technology Inc., No. 17-138, Fed. Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — An allegation of unfair competition by misappropriation under Texas law was properly rejected by a Texas federal judge on the basis of federal preemption under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Nov. 14 (Motion Medical Technologies LLC, et al. v. ThermoTek Inc., No. 16-11381, 5th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22826).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — An October decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to grant Apple Inc.’s motion to file supplemental information in its challenge to a California Institute of Technology (Caltech) patent is “deeply prejudicial in both its timing and its scope,” the university told the board on Nov. 13 (Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology, No. IPR2017-00728, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A challenge by the U.S. States Department of Justice to various claims of a security alarm system patent was partly successful Nov. 10, when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed that 18 claims are unpatentable as anticipated (U.S. Department of Justice v. Discovery Patents LLC, No. IPR2016-01041, PTAB).
SOUTH BEND, Ind. — Efforts by a patent owner to obtain a preliminary injunction barring a competitor from selling a similar device designed to aerate and dispense wine were unsuccessful on Nov. 13, when an Indiana federal judge questioned the likelihood that the lawsuit will succeed (MercAsia USA Ltd. v. 3BTech Inc., et al., No. 17-718, S.D. Ind., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187000).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a reversal of its previous findings, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 13 upheld a Wisconsin federal judge’s decision to deny a new trial on damages and infringement of various genetic testing kit patents (Promega Corporation v. Life Technologies Corp., No. 13-1011, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22635).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Florida federal judge did not err in rejecting allegations by Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing Limited (Amgen, collectively) that proposed biosimilar versions of two Amgen pegfilgrastim and filgastim products would infringe a patented method of refolding recombinant proteins expressed in non-mammalian cells, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Nov. 13 (Amgen Inc., et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al., No. 17-1010, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22638).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The owner of a patent covering the short bowel syndrome (SBS) drug Gattex argued before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 9 that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in deeming various claims obvious under Section 103 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 103 (In re: NPS Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 17-1392, Fed. Cir.).