WASHINGTON, D.C. — A phonetic symbol system formed by phonetic symbols using letters of the English alphabet is directed to nonstatutory subject matter, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 20, affirming a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (In re: George Mizhen Wang, 17-1827, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 15 order, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals announced that it will not rehear a dispute over whether it or the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide a dispute over antitrust violations stemming from fraud before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) (Xitronix Corporation v. KLA-Tencor Corporation, No. 16-2746, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16203).
ATLANTA — Efforts by Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc. to obtain summary judgment on claims by the Federal Trade Commission that Solvay violated antitrust laws with reverse payments designed to prevent entry to the market of generic AndroGel were unsuccessful June 14, when a Georgia federal judge overseeing multidistrict litigation found that the government has adequately pleaded that Solvay conspired to restrain trade (In re: AndroGel Antitrust Litigation No. II, MDL No. 2084 [All Cases], No. 1:09-md-2084, N.D. Ga., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99716).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Texas federal magistrate judge’s sua sponte construction of “gelling agent” as excluding water was erroneous, the licensee and owner of a patent covering the ulcerative colitis drug Delzicol maintain in an appeal to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Allergan Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., No. 18-1241, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent at the center of infringement litigation pending in Wisconsin and Colorado federal courts would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, according to a June 8 petition for inter partes review filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ABS Global Inc. v. XY LLC, No. IPR2018-01224, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 13 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with Cisco Systems Inc. that five claims of a conference call patent do not pass muster under Section 103 of the Patent Act (Cisco Systems Inc. v. Uniloc USA Inc., et al., No. IPR2017-00597, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A claimed form of synthetically interfering ribonucleic acid (RNAi) molecules is not entitled to patent protection, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc. asserts in a June 11 petition for post-grant review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Silence Therapeutics GmbH, No. PGR2018-00067, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An inter partes review (IPR) petitioner is disputing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to allow substitute claims based on unexpected results, according to a recently filed brief before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Valeo North America, Inc. and Valeo Embrayages v. Schaeffler Technologies AG & CO KG, Nos. 2018-1196, -1228, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 30 reply brief, a patent owner argues against findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a patented technology used in oil and gas wells would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, based upon a combination of teachings in three reference books with three primary art references (Enventure Global Technology Inc. v. Mohawk Energy Ltd., No. 18-1356, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent covering data compression claims “known compression concepts,” Amazon.com Inc., Hulu LLC and Netflix Inc. assert in a June 4 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Amazon.com Inc., et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, No. IPR2018-01187, PTAB).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal magistrate judge on June 8 found that a patent owner’s counsel did not waive attorney-client privilege regarding certain proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) over a water park ride patent, partly denying a motion to compel his deposition but granting the defendant’s motion related to nonprivileged communications and requests for production (RFPs) (Whitewater West Industries Ltd. v. Pacific Surf Designs Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-01118, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96970).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 11 decision, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals partly affirmed and partly vacated findings of patentability by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board with regard to methods and systems for ameliorating aberrant spinal column deviations (Medtronic Inc. v. Mark A. Barry, Nos. 17-1169, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15667).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 11 order, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals granted a joint motion to remand to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board an inter partes review (IPR) of an animal litter patent but declined a petitioner’s request that the court order the board to address allegations of fraud or sanctions stemming from documents produced in a parallel district court case (Nestlé Purina Petcare Company v. Oil-Dri Corporation of America, No. 17-1744, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Texas federal judge did not err in granting Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. summary judgment, nor in awarding Huawei attorney fees incurred in defending allegations that it infringed three semiconductor patents, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded June 8 (Xiaohua Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Nos. 2017-1505, -1767, -1893, -2092, -2229, Fed. Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — In a June 7 ruling, a New York federal judge rejected efforts by two defendants to strike supplemental patent infringement allegations in a case that already asserted patent and copyright infringement, as well as violations of the Lanham Act (PopSockets LLC v. Quest USA Corp., et al., No. 17-3653, E.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96137).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 7 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected assertions by a patent owner that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in finding a motivation to combine two prior art references in a dispute over a marine seismic surveying patent (PGS Geophysical AS v. Andrei Iancu, Nos. 2016-2470, -2472, -2474, Fed. Cir.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — In a June 6 report, a Delaware federal magistrate judge recommended that Chief U.S. Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware deny a motion to dismiss patent infringement allegations on grounds that the plaintiff failed to comply with the patent marking statute (Lexos Media IP LLC v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc., No. 17-1317, D. Del. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94176).
MARSHALL, Texas — Efforts by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and other defendants to bar an expert from testifying that they owe at least $1.5 billion in damages for patent infringement were unsuccessful on June 5, when a Texas federal magistrate judge denied their joint, sealed motion to exclude (Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 16-1314, E.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93876).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a final written decision issued June 6, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found nine challenged claims of a Koninklijke Philips N.V. patent nonobvious and not anticipated by prior art (Google Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. IPR2017-00437, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal judge’s determination that three claims of two patents are invalid as indefinite, based upon findings that the claims recite means-plus-function terms without sufficient corresponding structure, was vacated June 1 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in a loss for Apple Inc. (Zeroclick LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 17-1267, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 14581).