ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A medical device maker told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Nov. 19 that it should cancel 20 claims of a patented surgical stapler with jaws that open and close (Intuitive Surgical Inc. v. Rex Medical Inc., No. IPR2020-00152, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel majority of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 19 affirmed that two patents relating to manmade insulin are obvious, but a dissenting judge argued not only that the formulations are patentable but also that the patent owner is entitled to new inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in view of a recent ruling declaring the existing structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board unconstitutional (Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nos. 2019-1368, -1369, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34328).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 19 found no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s conclusion that a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of an online gaming patent was timely (Game and Technology Co. v. Wargaming Group Ltd., No. 19-1171, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34329).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Microsoft Corp. on Nov. 18 in a corrected appellee brief tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a Delaware federal magistrate judge did not err in construing an online translation patent’s requirement of “dialectal standardization” of one or more “content words” as requiring standardization between different dialects of the language in which the query was made (Improved Search LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 19-1961, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — An integrated circuit power management patent claims a “well-known approach” that would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA), Intel Corp. alleges in a Nov. 15 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC, No. IPR2020-00114, PTAB).
DALLAS — A federal judge in Texas on Nov. 18 denied a counterclaimant’s request for a preliminary injunction requiring a patent owner to rescind a notice of infringement sent to the online retailer Amazon.com (Unicorn Global Inc., et al. v. Golabs Inc., No. 19-754, N.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199571).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Nov. 18 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will not take on a dispute that poses the question of whether the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal’s practice of issuing one-word summary affirmances violates the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. V (Straight Path IP Group LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 19-253, U.S. Sup.).
MARSHALL, Texas — In a Nov. 15 ruling, a federal judge in Texas found that Huawei Device USA Inc., in defending allegations of patent infringement, engaged in “rank gamesmanship that crossed the line of zealous advocacy,” thereby qualifying the case as exceptional (Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, et al., v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 17-123, E.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198038).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Delaware federal judge erred in finding that three claims of a patented check data generating device claim ineligible subject matter, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Nov. 15 (Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, et al., Nos. 2018-1863, -1864, -1865, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34075).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Nov. 11 petitioner reply filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a petitioner for post-grant review (PGR) of a cancer treatment patent maintains its position that the claimed technology suffers from a lack of enablement (Genome & Company v. University of Chicago, No. PGR2019-00002, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Nov. 13 summary affirmance, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals left intact findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a voltage regulator patent challenged by Intel Corp. is unpatentable as obvious (R2 Semiconductor Inc. v. Intel Corporation, Nos. 19-1031, -1031, -1032, -1033, -1034, -1036, -1037, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Oct. 28 appellee brief, a patent owner tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in four final written decisions, correctly confirmed its disputed golf cart technology as patentable (Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car LLC, No. 19-1978, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 8 found that, on remand from a previous appeal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board conducted an erroneous analysis of analogous prior art when reversing various rejections to proposed new claims in a fire prevention patent (Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation, No. 19-1803, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33435).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A dissatisfied petitioner for derivation in a Nov. 11 motion tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it should receive a new hearing by a new panel of administrative patent judges (APJs), because the recent decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, (Fed. Cir. October 31, 2019), “altered the constitutionality of the Board itself” (Sports Nutrition Research Ltd. v. Chemi Nutra, DER2013-00001, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Nov. 6 reply brief, a patent owner criticizes as legally erroneous findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that an expert can rely upon nonpublic documents describing purported prior art to support an opinion of unpatentability (B/E Aerospace Inc. v. C&D Zodiac Inc., Nos. 2019-1935, -1936, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Nov. 7 filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a patent owner defended its “groundbreaking” invention as the first reference in the field of intracorporeal lithotripsy “to disclose a means to achieve multiple spark gaps positioned close to one another in a conductive liquid” (Cardiovascular Systems Inc. v. Shockwave Medical Inc., No. IPR2019-00408, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a one-page Nov. 7 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board three final written decisions declaring patents claiming novel structures for pillows unpatentable as anticipated, in view of its Oct. 31 ruling in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140 (Bedgear LLC v. Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. Inc., Nos. 2018-2082, -2083, -2084, Fed. Cir.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — In a Nov. 6 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accuses a drug maker of infringing four patents relating to the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (The United States v. Gilead Sciences Inc., et al., No. 19-2103, D. Del.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Nov. 6 order, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected a request for mandamus by a Hong Kong company accused of patent infringement in Texas, finding instead that the defendant is unable to demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” necessary to justify its request (In re: TCT International Limited, No. 20-103, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33161).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a redacted petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed Nov. 5 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Apple Inc. asserts that “nothing about communicating using different types of modulations was new” at the time the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued U.S. patent No. 8,457,228 (Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies LP, No. IPR2020-00037, PTAB).