Newsletter RSS

Mealey's Patents

  • February 21, 2020

    Panel:  Patent Board Erroneously Rejected Supplemental Briefing

    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.).

  • February 20, 2020

    Panel: Failure To Mark Sinks Pre-Complaint Patent Damages Request

    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).

  • February 20, 2020

    Company Seeks Damages For Infringement Of Patented Fracking Fluid Technology

    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).

  • February 19, 2020

    Panel Says Settlement Must Be Enforced In Mattress Patent Row

    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).

  • February 18, 2020

    High Court Vacates Stay 4 Days After Issuance In Insulin Patent Case

    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.).

  • February 18, 2020

    Panel Orders Dismissal Of Texas Patent Action Against Google

    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).

  • February 13, 2020

    Petitioner Defends Inter Partes Review Request In Reply To Board

    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).

  • February 13, 2020

    Intel Accused Of Infringing 8 Patents In New Texas Federal Case

    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).

  • February 12, 2020

    LED Fabrication Patent Singled Out In New Inter Partes Review Petition

    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).

  • February 12, 2020

    In Delaware, Indirect, Willful Patent Infringement Claims Dismissed

    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).

  • February 10, 2020

    ITC Will Investigate Sonos Patent Infringement Claims Against Google

    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).

  • February 07, 2020

    Dismissal Of Patent Case Against AT&T Affirmed By Federal Circuit

    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).

  • February 07, 2020

    Samsung Prevails In Inter Partes Review Of Communications Patent

    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).

  • February 07, 2020

    Parties Dispute Service Of Process In Briefing Before Patent Board

    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).

  • February 06, 2020

    Apple, Amici Urge Supreme Court To Decide Patent Apportionment Issue

    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.).

  • February 05, 2020

    Panel:  Patentability Of Indefinite Claims Can Still Be Assessed

    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).

  • February 05, 2020

    Federal Circuit Rejects Bid For Interlocutory Appeal Of Preclusion Ruling

    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.).

  • February 04, 2020

    Government Defends Sanction Against Patent Owner In New Brief

    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.).

  • February 04, 2020

    Finjan Denied Summary Judgment Of Patent Validity In California

    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).

  • February 03, 2020

    Federal Circuit Accepts Interlocutory Appeal Of Patent Damage Orders

    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.).