Mealey's Patents

  • May 08, 2020

    Panel Affirms: Patent Applicant Lacks Standing In Interference Proceeding

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 6 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a German company cannot continue an interference between its patent application and an existing patent because the applied-for patent is indefinite (Dionex Softron GmbH v. Agilent Technologies Inc., No. 19-1888, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14469).

  • May 08, 2020

    Valve Patent Claims Wrongly Confirmed As Patentable, Appellant Says

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 4 appellant brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a hydraulic stabilization company urges reversal and remand of a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which confirmed as patentable certain claims of a valve assembly patent (Power-Packer North America Inc., d/b/a Gits Manufacturing Co. v. G.W. Lisk Co. Inc., Nos. 2020-1250, -1323, Fed. Cir.).

  • May 07, 2020

    Federal Circuit: Arthrex Not Applicable To Cases Decided Post-Issuance

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an order issued May 6, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals turned away an appeal by a patent owner of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decision on the basis of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. because Arthrex was decided before the final written decision was issued (Caterpillar Paving Products Inc. v. Wirtgen America Inc., No. 20-1261, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14454).

  • May 07, 2020

    On Remand, Apple Says Patent Owner Arguments Are Barred

    ALEXANDRIA. Va. — In a May 6 filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Apple Inc.  maintains that the “main argument” advanced by a patent owner on remand from the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals — that a person of skill in the art would not have considered two prior art references together — is barred because the finding was already rejected by the board and not presented on appeal (Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corporation, No. IPR2017-00626, PTAB).

  • May 06, 2020

    Uber Prevails In Appeal Of Patent Board’s Nonobviousness Findings

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 5 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “incorrectly applied the relevant legal principles” when it determined that asserted prior art references do not render a limitation in a location exchange patent obvious (Uber Technologies Inc. v. X One Inc., No. 19-1164, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14253).

  • May 06, 2020

    In Unsealed Order, Federal Circuit Denies Apple’s Mandamus Petition

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 5 made public an April 22 order, originally filed under seal, that denied a petition for mandamus by Apple Inc. in a patent dispute involving iPhone, iPad and Mac products (In re:  Apple Inc., No. 20-115, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14317).

  • May 05, 2020

    Board Won’t Rehear Denial Of Institution Of Inter Partes Review

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Efforts by Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (Apotex, collectively) to persuade the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to revisit its 2018 decision denying institution of inter partes review (IPR) were unsuccessful on April 30, when the board denied rehearing (Apotex Inc., et al. v. Celgene Corp., No. IPR2018-00685, PTAB).

  • May 04, 2020

    Panel:  Asserted Claims Of Uniloc Patent Wrongly Declared Ineligible

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 30 disagreed with a California federal judge that various claims of a patented communication system are ineligible for patenting under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Uniloc USA Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., et al., No. 19-1835, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13876).

  • May 04, 2020

    Federal Circuit Partly Affirms, Partly Reverses In Medical Clip Row

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 30 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a cross-appellant and inter partes review (IPR) petitioner that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erroneously construed a patent limitation in declaring three claims of a medical device patentable (Cook Group Inc. v. Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Nos. 19-1413, -1422, Fed. Cir.).

  • May 04, 2020

    Citing Thryv, Panel Seeks Briefs From Parties, Amici In Patent Row

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 30 order, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals indicated that it may revisit its own recent ruling that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in allowing Facebook Inc. to join two subsequent inter partes reviews (IPRs) to two existing IPRs and, in so doing, introducing new patent claims to the proceedings (Facebook Inc. v. Windy City Innovations LLC, Nos. 2018-1400, -1401, -1402, -1403, -1537, -1540, -1541, Fed. Cir.).

  • May 01, 2020

    In Sur-Reply, Patent Owner Says Snap Mischaracterizes Prior Art

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A claim construction of “action spot” already agreed to by an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner in related district court litigation should be adopted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Blackberry Ltd. says in an April 17 filing (Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd., No. IPR2019-00715, PTAB).

  • May 01, 2020

    Claim Construction Was Proper, Patent Defendant Tells Federal Circuit

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — An appellee in an April 9 brief defended a Texas federal judge’s construction of the disputed term “swab” as it appears in a patent covering debris removal from the edges of an eyelid, urging the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to affirm (BlephEx LLC v. Pain Point Medical Systems Inc., No. 20-1187, Fed. Cir.).

  • May 01, 2020

    Apple Tells Federal Circuit Board Erred In Construing ‘Handheld Device’

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 13 appellant brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Apple Inc. disputes a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as premised on an erroneous claim construction “neither party asked for,” which failed to apply the plain meaning of “handheld device” (Apple Inc., et al. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC, Nos. 20-1222, -1234, Fed. Cir.).

  • April 21, 2020

    COMMENTARY: No Christmas In July For Patent Litigation

    By Nicholas Tsui and Wesley Achey

  • April 30, 2020

    Patent Owner Petitions Board For Rehearing In Data Compression Row

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an April 29 filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a patent owner maintains that a March 30 final written decision by the board includes “several errors” that were “critical” to its ultimate determination that all challenged claims of a patent directed to a bandwidth-sensitive data compression system are obvious (Netflix Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, No. IPR2018-01817, PTAB).

  • April 30, 2020

    In Dispute Over Patented DNA Assay, Panel Affirms Calif. Federal Judge In Full

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 24 agreed with a California federal judge’s decision to deny two patent infringement defendants’ post-trial request for a judgment of noninfringement and invalidity, as well as her decision to deny the owners of the patents permanent injunctive relief and supplemental damages (Verinata Health Inc., et al. v. Ariosa Diagnostics Inc., et al., Nos. 2018-2198, 2018-2303, 2018-2305, 2018-2306, 2018-2317, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13280).

  • April 29, 2020

    Eli Lilly Defends Tangential Exception, Opposes Certiorari In Patent Lawsuits

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a combined opposition brief filed to two of three current petitions for certiorari pertaining to the tangential exception to the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) in patent infringement lawsuits, Eli Lilly and Co. on April 27 told the U.S. Supreme Court that recent rulings by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals are consistent with controlling high court precedent and do not create a split meriting review (Hospira Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, No. 19-1058, U.S. Sup.; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, No. 19-1061, U.S. Sup.; and CJ CheilJedang Corp., et al. v. International Trade Commission, et al., No. 19-1062, U.S. Sup.).

  • April 29, 2020

    Samsung Petition For Review Should Be Denied, Patent Owner Says

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an April 27 preliminary patent owner response, an Irish patent holding company urges the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reject a request by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. for inter partes review of a touch screen patent (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Neodron Ltd., No. IPR2020-00334, PTAB).

  • April 28, 2020

    Owner Of Patent Challenged By Google Defends Technology

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Although acknowledging that its patent and a prior art patent “at a very high level of abstraction” both claim “the presentation of audio and video streams,” the patent owner in an April 27 response tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that “in concrete terms” the technologies “are very different” (Google LLC v. Virentem Ventures LLC, No. IPR2019-01243, PTAB).

  • April 28, 2020

    High Court Grants Cert, Remands 2 Patent Cases, Citing Recent Ruling

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its April 27 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases involving inter partes review (IPR) by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board in order to vacate and remand to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in light of its decision one week earlier in Thryv Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies L.P., et al. (Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc., No. 18-999; Superior Communications Inc. v. Voltstar Technologies Inc., No. 18-1027, U.S. Sup.).

Can't find the article you're looking for? Click here to search the Mealey's Patents archive.