ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Just over three months after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a petition for post-grant review of an “omnidirectional” multicamera housing patent, the patent owner moved for entry of an adverse judgment, voluntarily canceling all claims (Axis Communications AB v. Arecont Vision LLC, No. PGR2017-00031, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Briefing was recently completed in a dispute pending before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in which a patent owner asserts that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred on remand from a December 2016 ruling by the Federal Circuit when it again deemed various claims of a credit card transaction security patent anticipated and obvious (John D’Agostino v. Mastercard International Inc., Nos. 18-1000, -1001, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in deeming four claims of a patent covering geared turbofan engine technology unpatentable under Sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, the patent owner maintains in an appeal to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company, No. 17-2537, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a final written decision issued March 9, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with a petitioner that five claims relating to a humidifier chamber for a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine do not pass muster under Section 103 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Resmed Ltd. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., No. IPR2016-01719, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Texas federal judge erred in dismissing a patent infringement complaint against Google Inc. because the district court improperly presumed that terminally disclaimed continuation patents were patentably indistinct variations of their parent patents without analyzing the claims’ scope, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 12 (SimpleAir Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 16-2738, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 8 decision, a panel majority of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that a Massachusetts federal judge did not err in denying judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that 12 claims of two patents are ineligible for patenting under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, but reversed a verdict that three claims of one of the patents in suit was infringed (Exergen Corporation v. Kaz USA Inc., No. 16-2315, -2341, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — One week after filing an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. government on March 9 filed a motion in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking leave to participate in April 18 oral arguments in a case focusing on whether a patent holder can be awarded profits for a party’s acts of infringement outside the United States (WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent covering a video game display based on a received selection of panel information should not have been issued, a petitioner asserts in a March 8 request for post-grant review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Supercell Oy v. Gree Inc., No. PGR2018-00047, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent owner told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals at oral arguments on March 9 that an infringer requested samples of a flexible toothbrush — then marked “patent pending” — with the intent to copy the technology for resale under a competing brand, and then concealed evidence of infringing shipments from a Washington federal judge (Loops LLC, et al., v. Phoenix Trading Inc., et al., No. 17-1316, Fed. Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — Touting its status as an “innovator in the field of mobile communications,” BlackBerry Ltd. filed a complaint in California federal court March 6 against Facebook Inc., WhatsApp Inc. and Instagram Inc., alleging infringement of seven of its patents by the firms’ respective messaging apps (BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-01844, C.D. Calif.).
GREENWOOD, S.C. — In granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or transfer venue, a federal judge in South Carolina on March 5 ruled that a company has failed to show that the defendants in a patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation resided in South Carolina or that a significant amount of the claims made occurred in the state (Flexible Technologies Inc. v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, et al., No. 17-0117, D.S.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37122).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — At oral arguments on March 5 counsel for three prevailing patent infringement defendants told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a Delaware federal judge erred in deeming the underlying case unexceptional under Section 285 of the Patent Act (Sarif Biomedical LLC v. Brainlab Inc., et al., No. 17-1103, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Less than one month after oral arguments in a case that pits a patent renewal firm against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 1 directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing — among other things — whether the USPTO makes patent files available under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(A)–(E), through its Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) System (Renewal Services Inc. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 16-56088, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5322).
HOUSTON — A federal judge in Texas on Feb. 16 identified several disputed terms in a patent infringement lawsuit between two hydraulic fracturing technology companies, ruling that the plaintiff’s argument regarding the claim construction briefing was “more persuasive” than the defendants’ position (Multilift Wellbore Technology Ltd. v. ESP Completion Technologies LLC, et al., No. 1702611, S.D. Texas; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25630).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Oracle Corp. and NetApp Inc. filed a brief March 5 urging the U.S. Supreme Court to deny certiorari to a firm whose patent was declared invalid after inter partes review (IPR), arguing that that no deference to the pending decision on the constitutionality of IPR in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC is needed because the petitioner forfeited any constitutional argument (KIP CR P1 LP v. Oracle Corp., et al., No. 17-707, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A New York federal judge did not err in granting several automakers summary judgment on allegations of infringement of a book holder patent or in dismissing an inventor’s claim with prejudice with regard to several other automakers, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 7 (Chikezie Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, et al., No. 17-1842, Fed. Cir.).
HOUSTON — A federal judge in Texas on March 6 ruled that a company had to comply with discovery requests in a hydraulic fracturing patent infringement lawsuit because the company alleging the infringement had specifically named items in its amended complaint that constituted a violation of its patent (Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations LLC v. Packers Plus Energy Services Inc., No. 17-1422, S.D. Texas; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36590).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Allegations by a patent owner that McDonald’s Corp., through its use of third-party credit authorization networks, directly infringed two patents covering a system for managing digital data were properly dismissed by an Illinois federal judge, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 6 (William Grecia v. McDonald’s Corporation, No. 17-1672, Fed. Cir.).
DENVER — Because a plaintiff failed to show that it directly provided confidential and trade secret information to another company that eventually filed a patent application using the plaintiff’s trade secrets, a federal district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for trade secret misappropriation, a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled March 2 in affirming the lower court’s ruling (N8 Medical Inc., et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 17-4049, 10th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5398).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a final written decision issued March 2, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board disagreed with R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. that 14 claims of a patent titled “Electronic Cigarette” would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA) (R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., No. IPR2016-01692, PTAB).