WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 8 reversed and remanded to a Georgia federal court its findings that a polymer preparation patent is invalid as anticipated and obvious (BASF Corporation v. SNF Holding Co., et al., No. 19-1243, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 11007).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 7 found that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker is “inapplicable” to a request for attorney fees in a dispute over patent inventorship that was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice (Larry D. Butterfield v. Keith Manufacturing Co., No. 19-1136, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in Texas did not err in declaring a single claim of a patented radio communication system indefinite, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded April 7 (Uniloc USA, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., et al., No. 19-2072, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10901).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 7 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board its determination that claims 1-6, 9, 10, 12-39, 41-47, 49-58 and 63-70 of a hearing aid patent are obvious (In re: Anova Hearing Labs Inc., No. 19-1507, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Three challengers of a patent directed to systems and methods of payment escrow maintain in an April 3 supplemental brief that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should proceed with covered business method (CBM) review despite a recent determination in California federal court that the technology is ineligible for patenting (Stripe Inc., et al. v. Boom! Payments Inc., No. CBM2020-00002, PTAB).
WACO, Texas — A counterclaimant patent licensee on April 3 was awarded $39.9 million in connection with what a Texas federal judge deemed “appalling” conduct by the patent owner (Diamondback Industries Inc. v. Repeat Precision LLC, et al., No. 19-34, N.D. Texas).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal district court erred in denying remand of a trade secret misappropriation suit because a technology company’s trade secret claim was not dependent on the resolution of “a substantial question of federal patent law,” a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 3 in reversing and remanding (Intellisoft Ltd., et al. v. Acer America Corp., et al., No. 19-1522, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10511).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Michigan federal judge abused his discretion when barring a patent owner from making allegations of infringement against a former partner and from making threats of litigation against the former partner’s customers, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 3 (BlephEx LLC v. Myco Industries Inc., No. 19-2374, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10510).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in California erred in declaring four patents relating to voice over internet protocol (VoIP) technology ineligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §101, the patent owner maintains in a Feb. 24 appellant brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (VoIP-Pal.com Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 20- 1241, 20-1244, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a March 31 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that a system and method for blending butane into gasoline streams at any point along a petroleum pipeline is unpatentable (Magellan Midstream Partners LP v. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P., No. IPR2019-00025, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 31 reached the merits of and ultimately affirmed a Texas federal judge’s construction of various disputed claims in a fracking patent, after rejecting a challenge to the court’s appellate jurisdiction (EnerPol LLC v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., Nos. 2019-1079, -1120, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a March 30 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board canceled all 14 challenged claims of a patent directed to a bandwidth-sensitive data compression system, in a win for Netflix Inc. (Netflix Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, No. IPR2018-01817, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 25 appellee brief, the two named inventors of a patented treatment for castration resistant prostate cancer defend the rejection by a California federal judge of an appellant’s assertion that he is a co-inventor (Degui Chen v. Michael Jung, et al., No. 20-1255, Fed. Cir.).
RICHMOND, Va. —The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 27 agreed with a North Carolina federal judge that an appellant’s claimed trade dress for its chicken feeder is functional, and thus qualifies for protection only via utility patent (CTB Inc. v. Hog Slat Inc., No. 18-2107, 4th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9642).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent owner’s request for rehearing of a recent decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that denied a stay or termination of nine inter partes reviews (IPRs) of six patents was denied March 25 by the board (Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Rovi Guides Inc., Nos. IPR2019-00224, IPR2019-00231, IPR2019-00237, IPR2019-00239, IPR2019-00281, IPR2019-00290, IPR2019-00292, IPR2019-00299, IPR2019-00555, PTAB).
SAN FRANCISCO — Allegations that Google LLC willfully infringed a patent covering a portable QWERTY keyboard were dismissed March 26 by a federal judge in California, but the patent owner was granted leave to amend (Google LLC v. Princeps Secundus LLC, No. 19-6566, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52753).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — A request for summary judgment by the maker of an accused bridesmaid gown was denied March 24 by a federal judge in Kansas, who rejected as “not well taken” arguments by the defendant that trade dress infringement claims are preempted by the patent clause of the U.S. Constitution (Jenny Yoo Collection Inc. v. Essense of Australia Inc., No. 17-2666, D. Kan., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50486).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Citing a lack of “particularized testimony,” the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 25 reversed findings by a Delaware federal judge that two patents are infringed under the doctrine of equivalents by a proposed treatment of low-dose doxycycline for acne or rosacea (Galderma Laboratories L.P., et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al., No. 19-1021, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9341).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Citing a planned December 2020 trial in California federal court, a patent owner in a March 23 response asks the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to exercise its discretionary authority and deny institution of inter partes review (LG Electronics Inc. v. Bell Northern Research LLC, No. IPR2019-00319, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 27 appellant brief, the owner of a patented method of removing debris from the edges of the eyelid argues that a Texas federal judge erred in relying on a dictionary definition of “swab” during claim construction, leading to a stipulation of infringement (BlephEx LLC v. Pain Point Medical Systems Inc., No. 20-1187, Fed. Cir.).