WASHINGTON, D.C. — An unsuccessful inter partes review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. will be revisited in light of a June 18 decision by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that reversed findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that Samsung failed to establish obviousness (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. UUSI LLC, No. 18-1310, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18185).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A federal judge in California on June 17 ruled that a technology company has failed to sufficiently show that Apple Inc. engaged in unfair competition under California common law when it allegedly infringed on the company’s patented technology and intellectual property to develop its “Emergency SOS” product for its Apple devices because the claim is preempted by federal patent law and is superseded by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) (Zomm LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 18-4969, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101029).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in Oklahoma did not err in finding that because a reissue patent claims an invention not disclosed by the original patent, the reissue claims fail to comply with the original patent requirement of the Patent Act, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found June 17 (Forum US Inc. v. Flow Valve LLC, No. 18-1765, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18055).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Efforts by the Regents of the University of Minnesota (UMN) to avoid a challenge to various UMN patents were unsuccessful June 14, when the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that states do not enjoy sovereign immunity in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings (Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, et al., No. 18-1559; Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Ericsson Inc., Nos. 2018-1560, -1561, -1562, -1563, -1564, -1565, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17887).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent application relating to a “method of efficiently implementing a multi-dimensional interpolation” was properly rejected, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 13 (In re: Roman Gitlin, No. 18-1461, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17702).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 12 found no error in an Illinois federal judge’s decision to deny a trade dress infringement defendant judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that a plaintiff failed to prove that its “Chambord” French press coffeemaker features a nonfunctional design (Bodum USA Inc. v. A Top New Casting Inc., No. 18-3020, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17555).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its June 17 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case that posed the question of whether the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals can refuse an appeal of an adverse inter partes review (IPR) on standing grounds when no such standing requirement exists for those seeking IPR (RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, No. 17-1686, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Responding to an amicus curiae brief by the U.S. government, a patent holder filed a supplemental brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 3, arguing that an underlying ruling and the precedent on which it relies reflect an incorrect interpretation of what constitutes an offer to sell an infringing item under Section 271(a) of the Patent Act, in asking the high court to provide guidance on domestic an extraterritorial sales (Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America Inc., No. 18-600, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 29 appellant brief, three partly unsuccessful inter partes review (IPR) petitioners tell the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in determining that various claims of a voice messaging patent are not obvious (Apple Inc., et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, Nos. 2019-1151, -1179, -1203, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Allegations by two patent infringement defendants that a jury’s damage award was not properly apportioned are forfeited, the patent owners tell the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a May 24 appellee brief (Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, et al. v. Cochlear Corp., et al., No. 19-1201, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a June 7 unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found no error in a Washington federal judge’s denial of a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no willful trade dress infringement (National Products Inc. v. Arkon Resources Inc., Nos. 18-35220 and 18-35221, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17170).
DUBLIN, Ga. — Two defendants on June 6 won transfer of patent infringement allegations when a federal judge in Georgia found that the interests of justice are better served with the case proceeding in the Central District of California (Rehrig Pacific Co. v. Polymer Logistics Ltd., et al., No. 18-55, S.D. Ga., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95384).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 6 petition for inter partes review (IPR), a perimeter security company maintains that a patented “Anti-Ram System and Method of Installation” recites bollard technology that has been “commonplace . . . for decades” (Guardiar Technologies Inc. v. RSA Protective Technologies LLC, No. IPR2019-01162, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The three administrative review proceedings established by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) cannot be initiated by the U.S. government, which does not qualify as a “person” under the statute, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 10 (Return Mail Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, et al., No. 17-1594, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 5 preliminary patent owner response, the maker of a line of wood-fired pellet grills defended its patent covering a cloud-based platform that allows grills to be operated remotely (GMG Products LLC v. Traeger Pellet Grills LLC, No. PGR2019-00035, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 5 petition filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Wells Fargo N.A. asserts that a claimed method for improvements in image capture quality as used in electronic check depositing would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA) (Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile Association, No. IPR2019-01082, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In supplemental briefs filed June 4, a genetics analysis company and the maker of a purportedly infringing DNA test respond to a recently filed brief by the U.S. government, arguing in the U.S. Supreme Court as to whether certiorari should be granted on a question of patent priority dates and prior art (Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Illumina Inc., No. 18-109, U.S. Sup).
WILMINGTON, Del. — In a June 4 holding, a federal judge in Delaware found that because a patent infringement defendant’s theory of patent indefiniteness has “substantial” merit, the patent owner is not entitled to a preliminary injunction (Ingevity Corporation v. BASF Corporation, No. 18-1391, D. Del., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93109).
MARSHALL, Texas — Efforts by two defendants to persuade a federal judge in Texas to toss a jury’s $3.5 million award of presuit damages were unsuccessful on June 5, when the request was denied (Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems Inc., et al., No. 16-230, E.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93710).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 3 petition, a solar energy company told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a claimed method for manufacturing solar cells and a resulting structure would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA) (REC Solar Pte. Ltd. v. Hanwha Q CELLS & Advanced Materials Corporation, No. IPR2019-01145, PTAB).