WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 26 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld findings that various claims of an optical device patent are obvious while also reversing, in part, the board’s finding that other claims in the same patent are nonobvious.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an April 25 petition for inter partes review, Meta Inc. maintains that a patent that recites a process of presenting advertisements to a website user based on the user’s previously visited websites relies on “well-known technology” such as “tagging” and “cookies” that are “conventionally used for tracking user activity on the World Wide Web.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 18 appellee brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Director Katherine Vidal urges the panel to uphold findings that a Google LLC application to patent a method for presenting search results would be obvious.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an April 21 petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. maintains that six claims of a biointerface patent should be canceled for inadequate written description or, alternatively, as obvious in view of prior art.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its April 25 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that it will not review a challenge to the practice by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of allowing expert testimony in inter partes review proceedings.
FORT MYERS, Fla. — A Florida federal judge on April 20 denied a motion for summary judgment by Comcast Cable Communications LLC that stands accused of infringing a patent directed to a system and device for accessing video content.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 13 appellee brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the owner of a patent that survived inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board says the panel should affirm.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Comcast Corp. filed one of two amicus curiae briefs supporting Cisco Systems Inc. on April 18, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to provide guidance on the proper standard for granting enhanced damages in the context of a patent infringement judgment, stating that the standard articulated in Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc. is not being properly followed by courts.
AKRON, Ohio — A federal judge in Ohio on April 12 partially dismissed patent infringement claims brought by a company that makes materials used in hydraulic fracturing operations, finding that material questions of fact remain regarding whether the patent claims are invalid “on the basis of anticipation or obviousness.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 19 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected efforts by Intel Corp. to challenge the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s construction of “primarily in serial” and “primarily in parallel” as the terms appear in a processor patent.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — An equipment supplier for commercial growers told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 19 in a petition for inter partes review that it should cancel myriad claims of a patented “flow distribution system.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal judge misread precedent as imposing a “bright-line rule” that licensing, settlement and related communication between a patent owner and a purported infringer cannot form the basis for personal jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 18 in a win for Apple Inc.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 15 opinion addressing two grants of summary judgment, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a determination that various accused AT&T systems do not infringe three telecom patents.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its April 18 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the U.S. solicitor general to weigh in on a dispute between two drugmakers over two patents designed to lower low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 14 reversed findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that 24 claims of an Amgen Inc. recombinant protein patent are obvious.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A denial by a federal judge in Nevada of a patent owner’s request for preliminary injunctive relief was premised on an erroneous claim construction, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 12.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Five months after Apple Inc. filed a petition for certiorari seeking the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of a question about whether a licensee has standing to sue over patents that are the subject of a license, the tech firm on April 1 filed another petition, appealing the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ dismissal of its appeals of four more inter partes review (IPR) rulings and presenting the same question as the previous petition.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Polar Electro Oy filed a notice of waiver in the U.S. Supreme Court on April 13, declining to respond to a petition for certiorari filed by a competitor whose asserted patents were deemed ineligible as disclosing abstract ideas, opting not to opine on presented questions over the proper procedure for determining patent claim eligibility.
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Evenflo Company Inc., which is accused of infringing a competitors’ patents relating to an alert system for baby car seats, was compelled to submit documents responsive to the competitor’s requests for production on April 11, with an Arkansas federal judge deeming information about source code, affiliates and sales projections to be relevant.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to St. Jude Medical S.C. Inc., the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 12 disagreed with a Minnesota federal judge that a majority of claims of a catheter patent are invalid as indefinite, concluding instead that “when read in light of the intrinsic evidence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty.”