NEW YORK — A federal magistrate judge in New York on Oct. 15 directed a defendant to refile its request for attorney fees after the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals weighs in on a summary judgment determination that the defendant did not infringe trade dress or patents relating to candy (The Topps Company Inc. v. Koko’s Confectionary & Novelty Inc., No. 16-5954, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191302).
MARSHALL, Texas — A California company on Oct. 16 filed a lawsuit in Texas federal court, asserting infringement of five patents relating to contactless payment technology (RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 20-335, E.D. Texas).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an Oct. 19 opinion upheld findings by an Indiana federal judge that a patented method of using peer-to-peer networking technology for verification of employment history recites ineligible subject matter (Tenstreet LLC v. DriverReach LLC, No. 20-1101, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Oct. 15 ruling, the Federal Circuit reversed findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that four claims of a patented artificial heart valve are anticipated by prior art (St. Jude Medical LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC, No. 19-2108, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Oct. 19 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari to a technology firm that appealed the awarding of attorney fees to Facebook Inc. as the prevailing party in a patent infringement lawsuit that was dismissed as moot after a patent invalidity finding, declining to address the presented question about the proper standard for determining whether a litigant is a prevailing party (B.E. Technology LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. 19-1323, U.S. Sup.).
By Lauren Bolcar and Scott Pivnick
NORFOLK, Va. — Four patents relating to cybersecurity are valid and willfully infringed by Cisco Systems Inc., a federal judge in Virginia concluded Oct. 5, awarding the patent owner $1.88 billion in reasonable royalty damages and $13.7 million in prejudgment interest, for a total award of $1,903,239,287.50 (Centripetal Networks Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 18-94, E.D. Va., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184695).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly declared two patents used in the medical transcription industry obvious, a software company maintains in a Sept. 28 appellee brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Nuance Communication Inc. v. MModal LLC, Nos. 2020-1549, -1550, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Oct. 13 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear consolidated oral arguments in three cases involving the question of whether the appointment of administrative patent judges (APJs) to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by the secretary of Commerce is a violation of the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution (United States v. Arthrex Inc., et al., No. 19-1434; Smith & Nephew Inc., et al. v. Arthrex Inc., et al., No. 19-1452; Arthrex Inc., et al. v. Smith & Nephew Inc., et al., No. 19-1458, U.S. Sup.).
PHILADELPHIA — Two product configurations for “Pocky” — a thin, stick-shaped cookie — claim functional features protectable only with patents, not trade dress, a panel of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 8 (Ezaki Glico Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lotte International America Corp., No. 19-3010, 3rd Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31926).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Oct. 9 preliminary patent owner response filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the owner of a patent directed to online gaming maintains that a recent petition for inter partes review (IPR) “only superficially” asserts obviousness and fails to present “the necessary showings that warrant institution” (DraftKings Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC, No. IPR2020-01110, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Oct. 10 petition for inter partes review, NVIDIA Corp. tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it should cancel a patent directed to parallelizing mathematical functions across several processors because peer-to-peer communication in the prior art was “commonplace” (NVIDIA Corp. v. Advanced Cluster Systems Inc., No. IPR2021-00020, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Oct. 9 ruling, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board turned away a petition for post-grant review (PGR) of a patented vaping device intended for use with cannabis (GoFire Inc. v. Canopy Growth Corporation, No. PGR2020-00044, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent claiming to improve the experience of internet users by determining intent to predict and suggest webpages to visit would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSA), Facebook Inc. maintains in an Oct. 7 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Facebook Inc. v. USC IP Partnership LP, No. IPR2021-00034, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent owner’s “lack of diligence” is to blame “for the demise of its case before trial,” and the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should thus uphold a stipulated judgment of noninfringement, Apple Inc. maintains in a Sept. 10 redacted appellee brief (DSS Technology Management Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 20-1570, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Oct. 7 opinion, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined to weigh in on a claim construction dispute, finding instead that a New Hampshire federal judge was possibly led down an “unnecessary path” by a patent plaintiff and defendant because the case may be “predicated on an impermissible theory of liability” (AntennaSys Inc. v. AQYR Technologies Inc., No. 19-2244, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Oct. 6 opinion, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld findings by a Nebraska federal judge that a single challenged claim of a lawn mower patent is not invalid, as well as his decision to award prejudgment interest in the case (Exmark Manufacturing Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group LLC, No. 19-1878, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31709).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A challenge by a pharmaceutical company to an August 2019 determination by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that it lacks jurisdiction over allegations that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violated SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu was unsuccessful on Oct. 5, when the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case (BioDelivery Sciences International Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics Inc., No. 19-1381, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 2 found that, contrary to the conclusion reached by a federal judge in Delaware, a jury verdict that Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. induced infringement of a reissue patent is supported by substantial evidence (GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., No. 18-1976, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Oct. 5 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will not address findings by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a patent owner is entitled to a jury trial on the calculation of a release payment based upon retrospective "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) rates for past unlicensed sales (TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., et al. v. Ericsson Inc., et al., No. 19-1269, U.S. Sup.).