WACO, Texas — Efforts by four defendants associated with the “Bumble” dating app to obtain dismissal of allegations they infringed three patents and the “Swipe” trademark were unsuccessful March 18, when a federal judge in Texas instead ruled the case should proceed (Match Group LLC v. Bumble Holding Limited, et al., No. 18-80, W.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46656).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The owner of a patented technique for controlling vehicle engine output maintains in a March 17 preliminary response filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that efforts by Volkswagen Group of America Inc. to cancel various claims of the patent should fail (Volkswagen Group of America Inc. v. Michigan Motor Technologies LLC, No. IPR2020-00169, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 18 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found 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., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8522).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although reversing and remanding a New Jersey federal judge’s determination that various claims of one patent covering a type of treating type 2 diabetes mellitus is drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 16 upheld a bench trial judgment that claims of two other patents in suit are invalid for obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., No. 19-1172, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8393).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a ruling issued March 17, a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed with a California federal judge that various claims of two patents relating to separating fetal DNA from maternal DNA in cell-free DNA floating in a mother’s bloodstream are directed to an ineligible natural phenomenon (Illumina Inc., et al. v. Ariosa Diagnostics Inc., et al., No. 19-1419, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8327).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Just over one week after it sued a biotechnology company and its subsidiary for patent infringement in Delaware federal court, the owner of two patents relating to biological fluid testing said in a statement March 17 that it would grant royalty-free licenses to third parties who use its patented technology while developing tests for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (Labrador Diagnostics LLC v. Biofire Diagnostics LLC, et al., No. 20-348, D. Del.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 16 upheld an award of more than $268 million in enhanced damages in a dispute over cochlear implant patents (Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, et al. v. Cochlear Corp., et al., No. 19-1201, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Ethicon LLC on March 12 filed a patent owner response with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in which the medical device maker asserts that the inventors of a “novel motor-powered surgical stapler” addressed a “critical concern” not solved by prior art (Intuitive Surgical Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, No. IPR2019-00991, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A claimed process for automatically generating top-level index files for use in adaptive bitrate streaming is obvious to a person of skill in the art, two popular streaming services assert in a March 11 petition for inter partes review (IPR) (Netflix Inc., et al. v. Divx LLC, No. IPR2020-00648, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 28 reply brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a patent owner maintains that prior art relied upon by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in declaring six claims of a data management patent obvious do not teach key “monitoring” limitations (Sound View Innovations LLC v. Hulu LLC, et al., Nos. 19-1865, -1866, -1867, Fed. Cir.).
CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois on March 10 partly agreed with two infringement defendants, granting judgment on the pleadings that various claims of a medical device patent are invalid and not infringed (Baxter International U.S. v. CareFusion Corporation et al., No. 15-9986, N.D. Ill., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40997).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a March 10 patent owner response, United Services Automobile Association (USAA) tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it not only invented an auto-capture mobile check deposit system, it “actually brought the feature to market,” representing a “palpable” improvement over USAA’s own prior system that relied on manual-capture of a check to be deposited (Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile Association, No. IPR2019-01082, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A filing by Snap Inc. on March 10 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board asserts that Blackberry Ltd., in defending its patented technology, imports “unsupported limitations” and “mischaracterizes” the teachings of prior art, in a testament to the “weakness” of Blackberry’s “substantive positions” (Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd., No. IPR2019-00715, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 6 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that various claims of a patented system of data management and processing run afoul of Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, by claiming the abstract idea of using a computer to deliver targeted advertising (Customedia Technologies LLC v. Dish Network Corporation, et al., Nos. 18-2239, 19-1000, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7005).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Delaware federal judge took a “shortcut” when construing various disputed claim terms in a patent used in the ulcerative colitis drug “Uceris” and other systems for delivering drugs to the gastrointestinal tract, the patent owner tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a March 4 appellant brief (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, et al. v. Actavis Laboratories Fl. Inc., et al., No. 20-1201, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 5 summary affirmance, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals left intact a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that rejected allegations by Apple Inc. that a California Institute of Technology (Caltech) patent is obvious (Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology, Nos. 19-1580, -1581, Fed. Cir.).
WACO, Texas — A hydraulic fracturing company on Feb. 26 sued a fracking well services company in Texas federal court, contending that it infringed a patent related to technology used to protect fracking equipment from sand that is used in the process of oil and gas extraction (Forum US Inc. v. Odessa Separator Inc., No. 20-150, W.D. Texas).
SAN FRANCISCO — Allegations of antitrust violations by a putative class in connection with patent settlement agreements between the makers of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) drugs for the treatment of HIV will proceed, a California federal judge ruled March 3 (Staley, et al. v. Gilead Sciences Inc., et al., No. 19-2573, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36747).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 3 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in confirming the patentability of three independent claims of a location sharing patent, in response to a petition for inter partes review (IPR) by Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber Technologies Inc. v. X One Inc., No. 19-1165, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6604).
VALDOSTA, Ga. — A federal judge in Georgia on March 2 granted a motion to transfer by the owners of a plant growth regulator patent, agreeing that their cease-and-desist letter sent to a Georgia company is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction in an ensuing infringement dispute (Fine Americas Inc., et al. v. Stoller Enterprises Inc., et al., No. 19-28, M.D. Ga., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35106).