WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 21 found that although the Patent Trial and Appeal Board properly determined a challenger failed to demonstrate a prior art reference anticipated two claims of a data security and storage patent, the board abused its discretion when it rejected arguments of invalidity made with regard to a third claim, in a supplemental brief (Kingston Technology Company Inc. v. Spex Technologies Inc., No. 19-1256, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 19 agreed with a Florida federal judge that the false marking provision of Section 287(a) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), “continues to limit damages after a patentee or licensee ceases sales of unmarked products” (Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., et al., No. 19-1080, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5023).
WACO, Texas — A technology company involved in the hydraulic fracturing industry on Feb. 17 sued a fracking services company in Texas federal court contending that it is liable for patent infringement (Cameron International Corporation v. Nitro Fluids LLC, No. 20-125, W.D. Texas).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 13 found that a New York federal judge erred in granting Casper Sleep Inc. a summary judgment that it did not infringe a competitor’s mattress patent, after the parties had already executed a settlement agreement in the case (Serta Simmons Bedding LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., Nos. 2019-1098, -1159, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 446).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A petition to stay a mandate by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a dispute over the patentability of genetically modified insulin was granted Feb. 10 by the U.S. Supreme Court, but just four days later, on Feb. 14, the order was vacated and the stay denied “in all respects,” according to the court docket (Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 19A886, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Feb. 13 directed a federal judge in Texas to dismiss allegations that Google LLC’s Pixel smartphones infringe three patents; in the same order, a concurring judge wrote separately to “raise questions about Google’s business model” (In re: Google LLC, No. 19-126, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A medical technology company in a Feb. 11 brief maintains that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board properly instituted inter partes review (IPR) of a patent describing the incorporation of “plasticizers” within a soft tissue graft (RTI Surgical Inc. v. Lifenet Health, No. IPR2019-00573, PTAB).
WACO, Texas — ParkerVision Inc. on Feb. 11 raised allegations that Intel Corp. infringed eight patents relating to radio frequency (RF) transceiver chips that provide cellular connectivity to iPhones and other devices (ParkerVision Inc. v. Intel Corporation, No. 20-108, W.D. Texas).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — On Feb. 11, an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a patented method of fabricating a semiconductor flip-chip light emitting diode (LED) would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSA) at the time of patenting (Cree Inc. v. Document Security Systems Inc., No. IPR2020-00557, PTAB).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware federal judge on Feb. 10 found that an action alleging direct infringement of a method of preparing colloidal nanocrystals using noncoordinating solvents may continue, but that the patent owner’s related indirect and willful infringement allegations fail (NNCrystal US Corporation v. Nanosys Inc., No. 19-1307, D. Del., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22462).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) on Feb. 6 announced that it has launched a probe of Google LLC, following a complaint by Sonos Inc. that the tech giant infringes five patents relating to wireless audio technology (In the Matter of Certain Audio Players and Controllers, Components Thereof, And Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1191, ITC).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Allegations that AT&T Services Inc. and its manufacturer and supplier of components for the AT&T fiberoptic system infringed an optical communication network patent were properly dismissed by a federal judge in Texas, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 6 (Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services Inc., et al., No. 19-1264, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3550).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A Feb. 6 final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board resulted in the cancellation of a single challenged claim of a mobile communications patent, in a win for an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Iron Oak Technologies LLC, No. IPR2018-01554, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Feb. 6 reply, an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner defended its electronic service of process to counsel for a patent owner, noting that the parties have routinely engaged in such methods of service during concurrent federal litigation (Elekta Inc. v. Best Medical International Inc., No. IPR2020-00073, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Apple Inc. on Feb. 4 filed a reply brief supporting its petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide a standard for considering apportionment and intervening patent invalidations in infringement cases, seeking to reverse a $439 million judgment against it (Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., et al., No. 19-832, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 4 remanded to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board an inter partes review (IPR) of a video streaming patent, clarifying that the board “may analyze the patentability of a claim even if that claim is indefinite” (Samsung Electronics America Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Nos. 19-1169, -1260, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3292).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 4 denied interlocutory appeal of an Illinois federal judge’s determination that a patent, twice deemed unenforceable, can nonetheless remain asserted in an infringement action (Feit Electric Company Inc. v. CFL Technologies LLC, No. 20-110, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 3 intervenor brief, the U.S. government tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that it should uphold not only findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that two message routing patents are nonobvious but also the agency’s decision to order rehearing as a sanction for the patent owner’s unauthorized ex parte communication with two board panels previously assigned to the case (Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Nos. 2018-1456, -1457, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A request by Finjan Inc. for a summary judgment of patent validity with regard to two computer network security patents was rejected Feb. 3 by a federal judge in California, who was not persuaded that an infringement defendant’s failed bid for inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has bearing on the district court litigation (Finjan Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 17-72, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17076).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A per curiam panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 30 granted a petition for permission to appeal three orders by a federal judge in California that excluded the testimony of a patent owner’s damages expert on the eve of trial (MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology Inc., No. 20-105, Fed. Cir.).