ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board should deny a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patented method of measuring genetic data, the patent owner maintains in a Sept. 19 preliminary patent owner response (Illumina Inc. v. Natera Inc., No. IPR2019-01201, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal judge’s finding that a patent is potentially anticipated by a parent application and subsequent denial of a preliminary injunction requested by a patent owner were affirmed Sept. 23 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (OrthoAccel Technologies Inc. v. Propel Orthodontics LLC, et al., No. 18-1534, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28609).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent applicant’s initial response to a final action by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that continued to challenge the merits of an examiner’s rejection of various patent claims qualifies as applicant delay, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 18 (Intra-Cellular Therapies Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 18-1849, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27986).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Giving effect to its same-day summary affirmance of a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that all claims of four patents are unpatentable, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 19 directed a Texas federal judge to dismiss an infringement action (Chrimar Systems Inc. v. ALE USA Inc., No. 18-2420, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28105).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A manufacturer of new battery technologies sued its Chinese competitor on Sept. 16 in California federal court, alleging that the competitor engaged in a scheme to poach one of the manufacturer’s key employees and misappropriate the company’s confidential and trade secret information for its lithium-ion battery separators in violation of state and federal trade secret laws (Celgard LLC v. Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. [US] Research Institute, et al., No. 19-5784, N.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 18 decision, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that three claims of a patent directed to a digital-to-analog (DAC) and analog-to-digital (ADC) converter patent would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (Innovative Memory Systems Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc., No. 18-1348, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27988).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Sept. 18 petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Unified Patents Inc. took aim at a Finjan Inc. patent directed to the creation or receipt of a security profile for a file received over a network, also known as a “downloadable,” as well as transmission of the downloadable and its related security profile (Unified Patents Inc. v. Finjan Inc., No. IPR2019-01611, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 10 appellant brief, Power Integrations Inc. (PI) tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board confirmed the validity of a circuit patent based on an “entirely new theory presented for the first time” in its final written decision (Power Integrations Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries LLC, Nos. 2019-1863, -1868, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A decision by a Virginia federal judge to sustain the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)’s calculation of a term adjustment for an immunosuppression therapy drug patent was not erroneous, a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 16 (Mayo Foundation For Medical Education and Research v. Andrei Iancu, No. 18-2031, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27771).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what it deemed a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 12 found that where claim language supplies the only instance of an article of manufacture, and the article of manufacture appears nowhere in the figures included with a design patent application, the claim language is limiting (Curver Luxembourg SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., No. 18-2214, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27470).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — With U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments approaching, merits briefing concluded Aug. 14 in a dispute over whether Section 145 of the Patent Act provides for an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) arguing in its reply brief that the American Rule does not preclude such awards because the statute allows for an award of “expenses,” which typically include attorney fees (Laura Peter v. NantKwest Inc., No. 18-801, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Sept. 9 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with Illumina Inc. that two claims of a patent directed to a system for DNA sequencing would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA) (Illumina Inc. v. The Trustees of Columbia University, No. IPR2018-00797, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In competing reply briefs recently filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, an appellant and cross-appellant continue to debate the essence of a disputed fracking patent, as well as whether the panel possesses appellate jurisdiction in the case (EnerPol LLC v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., Nos. 2019-1079, -1120, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 3 appellant brief, Intellectual Ventures II LLC (IV) maintains that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or board) erred in canceling five claims of a patented method of cooling an electromagnetic device (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Aisin Seiki Company Ltd., et al., Nos. 19-1800, -1801, Fed. Cir.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — In a Sept. 10 decision, a federal judge in Delaware rejected a request by GlaxoSmithKline LLC and Glaxo Group Limited (Glaxo, collectively) for a new trial on allegations that it directly and indirectly infringed a patent relating to pharmaceutical compositions for inhalation (Vectura Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al., No. 16-638, D. Del., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153621).
NEW YORK — A dispute over a patented toy will proceed without a preliminary injunction in place because it remains unclear whether an accused product meets various limitations of the patent in suit, a federal judge in New York held Sept. 11 (Ever Victory Technology Limited v. SAS Group Inc., No. 19-486, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154954).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Efforts by Google Inc. to cancel various claims of a coding patent should fail because the “vast majority” of General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha factors weigh against institution of inter partes review (IPR), a patent owner told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Sept. 6 (Google Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, No. IPR2019-01038, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 9 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board misinterpreted the appellate court’s 2017 mandate that vacated as moot an appeal of an adverse inter partes re-examination (Valspar Sourcing Inc. v. PPG Industries Inc., Nos. 2018-1462, -1463, -2164, -2165, Fed. Cir.).
CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois on Sept. 6 rejected a request for a new trial in a decade-long dispute over patented features of an infant play gym but also denied a patent owner’s request for enhanced damages (Kolcraft Enterprises Inc. v. Chicco USA Inc., No. 09-3339, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151958).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 6 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed findings by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that a patent application relating to automated systems for personal financial planning claims ineligible subject matter (In re: Mark A. Greenstein, No. 19-1521, Fed. Cir.).