WASHINGTON, D.C. — Because Section 145 of the Patent Act does not explicitly provide for an award of attorney fees to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in an action challenging the denial of a patent application, a rejected applicant tells the U.S. Supreme Court in a July 15 respondent brief that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that the American Rule served to preclude such an award (Laura Peter v. NantKwest Inc., No. 18-801, U.S. Sup.).
PHILADELPHIA — A Delaware federal judge’s “thoughtful and thorough” decision rejecting breach of contract claims levied against a generic drug maker was affirmed July 16 by the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Amgen Inc. v. Cipla Ltd., et al., No. 19-2017, 3rd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21043).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A rejection by an examiner, later upheld by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, of a method for providing product and service recommendations online was affirmed July 12 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (In re: Greenstein, No. 19-1382, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20674).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a July 12 filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the owner of two patents relating to real-time newsfeeds and tickers in a social networking environment defends its technology as nonobvious (Facebook Inc. and Instagram LLC v. Search and Social Media Partners LLC, Nos. IPR2018-01620 and IPR2018-01622, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Appeals by myriad drug makers of a Delaware federal judge’s rejection of their challenge to the validity of several patents directed to Suboxone Film were largely unsuccessful July 12, when a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the district court on nearly all issues presented in the case (Indivior Inc., et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories SA, et al., Nos. 2017-2587, 2018-1010, -1058, -1062, -1114, -1115, -1176, -1177; Indivior Inc., et al. v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, Nos. 2018-1949, -2045, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20680).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. prevailed July 12 before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in its appeal of a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that confirmed all challenged claims of a coding patent (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Infobridge PTE Ltd., Nos. 2018-2007, -2012, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20678).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Even though the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ultimately accepted jurisdiction from the Fifth Circuit in the appeal of an antitrust suit dealing with patent fraud, a petitioner argues to the U.S. Supreme Court in a July 10 reply brief that certiorari is still warranted to determine which appeals court has jurisdiction in cases that involve patent matters alongside other claims (Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., No. 18-1170, U.S. Sup.).
GREENSBORO, N.C. — In a July 2 complaint, a plaintiff asserts that R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. copied its patented design for an e-cigarette after failed negotiations between the parties (Fuma International LLC v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., No. 19-660, M.D. N.C.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a July 10 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patented panoramic viewer fails to establish anticipation or obviousness (Polycom Inc. v. FullView Inc., No. IPR2019-00647, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 17 intervenor brief filed in the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the federal government defends the constitutionality of the practice by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of conducting inter partes reviews (IPRs) of patents issued before Congress authorized the procedure by statute (Collabo Innovations Inc. v. Sony Corporation, No. 19-1152, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A majority of a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 8 upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of a patent application as obvious, but a dissenting judge criticized the board’s final written decision as “insufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review” (In re: Jeremy Black and Patrick Hayes, No. 18-1166, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20143).
HOUSTON — Two hydraulic fracturing companies on July 8 filed a complaint in Texas federal court seeking declaratory judgment that they have not infringed a patent for a tool used in well casings in response to a cease-and-desist letter sent to the companies from the designer of a device that is similar to the tool in question (Exacta Frac Energy Services Inc., et al. v. Paul Bernard Lee, No. 19-2459, S.D. Texas).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a July 8 preliminary response, a patent owner urges the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reject a petition by Apple Inc. for inter partes review (IPR) of a secure message forwarding patent (Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies OY, No. IPR2019-00821, PTAB).
HOUSTON — A hydraulic fracturing well services company on July 3 sued two other well services companies in Texas federal court, alleging that they knowingly infringe on patents related to a fracking fluid pumping system (U.S. Well Services Inc. v. TOPS Well Services LLC, et al., No. 19-225, S.D. Texas).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although agreeing with an appellee that a patent owner’s appeal, “as argued,” of a dismissal for improper venue was frivolous, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 5 ruled that “we do not believe . . . such misconduct warrants sanctions under these circumstances” (Westech Aerosol Corporation v. 3M Company, et al., No. 18-1699, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20055).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a July 5 patent owner reply, Centripetal Networks Inc. told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it should reject allegations of obviousness asserted by Cisco Systems Inc. (Cisco Systems Inc. v. Centripetal Networks Inc., No. IPR2018-01512, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In confirming the patentability of various claims of an invention covering error-correcting codes, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board committed “a series of legal errors” and its finding of a lack of motivation to combine prior art references “is unsupported by substantial evidence,” Apple Inc. maintained July 1 in an appellant brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology, Nos. 19-1580, -1581, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Efforts by a patent licensee to overturn a February 2019 determination of patent ineligibility by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals were unsuccessful on July 3, when a majority of the court voted not to rehear en banc a dispute over a method of diagnosing certain neurological disorders; the denial of rehearing spawned eight separate writings by the judges, comprising four concurrences and four dissents (Athena Diagnostics Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services LLC, No. 17-2508, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 2 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals left intact findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in three inter partes reviews (IPRs) that various claims of a Finjan computer antivirus patent are patentable, while others are not (Palo Alto Networks Inc. v. Finjan Inc., Nos. 2017-2543, -2623, -2047, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19752).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A petitioner on July 2 failed to persuade the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to revisit their March 29 decision not to institute inter partes review of a casket patent (Matthews International Corporation v. Vandor Corporation, No. IPR2018-01693, PTAB).