ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Although it found in April 2016 that Google Inc. demonstrated that it would likely prevail on allegations that two claims of a vector-based traffic information patent would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 21 confirmed the patentability of both claims (Google Inc. v. Ji-Soo Lee, No. IPR2016-00045, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 21 vacated certain aspects of a final decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, agreeing that the underlying request for inter partes re-examination should not have been granted pursuant to Section 317(b) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) (Fairchild [Taiwan] Corporation v. Power Integrations Inc., No. 17-1002, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6998).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 1 will hear oral arguments in a dispute over the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s construction of the disputed term “traversing,” as it appears in a patent application for a device for extracting energy from fluid flow within the body (In re: Medical Biomech Partnership, No. 16-2159, Fed. Cir.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — An expert did not offer any developed damages theory relating to International Business Machines Corp.’s (IBM) use of its website, and there were “serious methodological and reliability problems” in his assumptions, a Delaware federal judge held April 17, excluding testimony in a patent infringement lawsuit (Parallel Networks Licensing LLC v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 13-2072, D. Del., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58394).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an April 17 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with a patent examiner that 20 claims of a patented system and method for detecting and nullifying the effects of computer viruses do not pass muster under Section 103(a) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (Ex parte Intellectual Ventures I LLC, No. 2017-000054, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although largely affirming a Texas federal judge’s claim construction and denial of a Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. request for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that two patents are invalid as obvious, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 17 nonetheless vacated a ruling that a patent owner’s damages should not be limited on the basis of its failure to mark products as patented (Rembrandt Wireless Technologies L.P. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 16-1729, Fed. Cir.; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6502).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patented network-computer-based personal contact manager system renders a claimed system for sharing information over the internet unpatentable, Facebook Inc. alleges in an April 14 petition for inter partes review filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Facebook Inc. v. ZKey Investments LLC, No. IPR2017-01278, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A North Carolina federal judge did not err in granting summary judgment to a Lanham Act and Patent Act defendant accused of marking its key-cutting machines as “patent pending,” the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 13 (Gordon Gravelle v. Kaba Ibco Corp., No. 16-2318, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6246).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Allegations that Apple Inc. infringed a patent claim directed to a means of sending packet data from a cellular telephone to a network through the use of a selected channel were properly rejected by a Texas federal judge and jury, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 14 (Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-2037, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6410).
PHILADELPHIA — Allegations by myriad plaintiffs that the companies that hold patents for the brand name drugs Lipitor and Effexor XR engaged in fraudulent patent procurement — known as Walker Process fraud pursuant to Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965) — do not arise under federal patent law, such that an appeal in the case must necessarily proceed in the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 13 (In re: Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, Nos. 14-4202, -4203, -4204, -4205, -4206, -4602, -4632, 15-1184, -1185, -1186, -1187, -1274, -1323 and 15-134, 3rd Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6346).
PORTLAND, Ore. — While allowing expert testimony on objective considerations of nonobviousness, an Oregon federal judge also granted in part summary judgment on April 12 to a sportswear company that certain prior art references do not anticipate utility patents relating to heat-directing elements to a garment’s innermost surface (Columbia Sportswear North America Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories Inc., No. 15-00064, D. Ore., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55714).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 31 brief, Sandoz Inc. tells the U.S. Supreme Court that rival biologic maker Amgen Inc. and the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have improperly read a requirement into a federal biosimilar statute mandating Food and Drug Administration approval of a biologic license application prior to the statute’s required 180-day premarketing notice (Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., et al.., No. 15-1039 and 15-1195, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in Oregon properly found that the University of Massachusetts (UMass) is entitled to sovereign immunity in a lawsuit seeking a correction of patent inventorship, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 12 (Mussa Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington, No. 16-2320, Fed. Cir.; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6250).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The applicability of the “American Rule” in disputes over a rejection of patent claims by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is currently before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Realvirt LLC v. Michelle K. Lee, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 17-1159, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A jury empanelled in Texas federal court correctly deemed various claims of two medical device patents invalid as anticipated and obvious, an infringement defendant recently argued to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Flexuspine Inc. v. Globus Medical Inc., Nos. 17-1188, -1189, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Nonprofit organizations for civil liberties filed an amicus curiae brief on April 10 in support of the U.S. Supreme Court deciding Samsung Electronics Co.’s petition on whether Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), require a court to hold patents obvious under 35 U.S. Code Section 103, “where the patents make at most trivial advances over technologies well-known to a person of skill in the art” (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-1102, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An appellate court correctly held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not need to issue a final decision addressing the patentability of every claim identified in a petition for inter partes review (IPR), “including claims whose patentability the agency declined to review in the instituted proceeding,” the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) director tells the U.S. Supreme Court in an April 5 response brief (SAS Institute Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and ComplementSoft LLC, No. 16-969, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The “Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act” (S. 124) was introduced Jan. 12 by U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in what was touted by Klobuchar as “bipartisan legislation to crack down on anti-competitive pay-for-delay pharmaceutical deals.”
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Six claims of a patented method for location sharing and mobile phone tracking are unpatentable as anticipated, Uber Technologies Inc. alleges in an April 7 petition for inter partes review (Uber Technologies Inc. v. X One Inc., No. IPR2017-01255, PTAB).
BOWLING GREEN, Ky. — After refusing to exclude expert testimony from both sides in a patent infringement case involving disposable pants-type diapers, a Kentucky federal judge on April 10 granted and denied in part summary judgment of noninfringement to a baby diaper manufacturer on certain accused products (SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag, et al. v. First Quality Baby Products LLC, et al., No. 10-00122, W.D. Ky., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54167).