WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Aug. 10 amicus curiae brief, ACT | The App Association tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that because the inter partes review (IPR) procedure “is neither a suit nor a private party’s complaint,” a state “cannot countermand” a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute IPR by invoking sovereign immunity (Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, et al., No. 18-1559; Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Ericsson Inc., Nos. 2018-1560, -1561, -1562, -1563, -1564, -1565, Fed. Cir.).
MIAMI — A patent owner’s interpretation of the false marking provision of Section 287(a) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), “would run contrary to the statute’s purpose to prevent innocent infringement, encourage patentees to give notice to the public that the article in question is patented, and aid the public in identifying whether an article is patented,” a Florida federal judge ruled Aug. 10, granting a defendant summary judgment (Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., No. 14-62369, S.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134898).
TRENTON, N.J. — A New Jersey federal judge on Aug. 10 joined with judges in the Southern District of California, the Eastern District of Texas, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Eastern District of Texas, the Middle District of Florida and the District of Delaware in determining that stays of patent litigation pending the outcome of petitions for covered business method (CBM) and inter partes review (IPR) are “premature” (Nasdaq Inc., et al. v. Miami International Holdings Inc., et al., No. 17-6664, D. N.J., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135193).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although upholding a Florida federal judge’s dismissal of an action seeking a declaratory judgment of patent inventorship, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 10 ruled that dismissal was warranted for failure to state a claim and, thus, should have occurred with prejudice (Michael Pappalardo v. Samantha Stevins, No. 18-1237, Fed. Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — A design patent covering a style of “UGG” boots is not invalid as obvious, a California federal judge concluded Aug. 8 following a bench trial (Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Romeo & Juliette Inc., No. 15-2812, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133784).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Oral arguments before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals were held Aug. 9 in a dispute between Facebook Inc. and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which upheld an examiner’s denial of a patent application by the social media giant on grounds of anticipation (In re: Facebook Inc., No. 17-2524, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent issued in November 2017 relating to a method of making a version of the 1800s board game reversi “more interesting” covers ineligible subject matter and contain “nothing inventive,” a petitioner for post-grant review (PGR) on Aug. 7 told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Supercell Oy v. Gree Inc., No. PGR2018-00091, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Oral arguments were held Aug. 8 in an appeal of final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that confirmed the validity of various claims of two computer memory module patents while also holding other claims unpatentable (Netlist Inc. v. SanDisk LLC, Nos. 17-1617, -1618, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board does not require demonstration of Article III standing, when the outcome of IPR is appealed, injury or the threat of injury must be established, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 3 (JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive Ltd., No. 17-1828, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21585).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Efforts by Skechers USA Inc. to cancel various claims of a patented shoe-cushioning system owned by adidas Inc. were unsuccessful Aug. 3, when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board deemed the technology nonobvious (Skechers USA Inc. v. adidas AG, No. IPR2017-00847, PTAB).
NEW ORLEANS — A Texas federal judge’s holding that his court must apply Chinese patent law to determine whether ICON Health & Fitness Inc. owes Nautilus Inc. patent royalties cannot be cross-appealed, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 3 (Nautilus Inc. v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc., No. 18-50097, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21606).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 18 corrected brief, an appellant tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in confirming the validity of a patent used in the oil and gas drilling industry (Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations LLC, No. 18-1490, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Aug. 1 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board confirmed the patentability of some claims of a patent directed to monitoring and adjusting software usage under software licenses but deemed 14 other claims of the same patent anticipated or obvious (Netflix Inc., et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., No. IPR2017-00948, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patented process for providing information about a performer, such as an actor or singer, during the playing of a video in which the performer appears “discloses nothing more than well-known functions,” Amazon.com Inc. asserts in an Aug. 1 petition for inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Amazon.com Inc. v. CustomPlay LLC, No. IPR2018-01496, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Patent owners who accused myriad defendants of infringing a microprocessor patent recently told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a California federal judge erred in granting the defendants summary judgment (Technology Properties Ltd. LLC, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., et al., Nos. 2018-1439, -1440, -1441, -1444, -1445, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that upheld an examiner’s rejection of 21 claims of a reissue application for a patent relating to a “carpeted vehicle load floor” on grounds of failure to comply with the written description requirement was error, an appellant maintains in a recent appeal to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (In re: Global IP Holdings LLC, No. 18-1426, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Over the objections of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and a patent owner, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 31 remanded an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for consideration of non-instituted claims and grounds, in view of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) (BioDelivery Sciences International Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics Inc., et al., Nos. 2017-1265, -1266, -1268, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 27 en banc ruling, a divided Federal Circuit U.S Court of Appeals affirmed a Virginia federal judge’s determination that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) may not recover its attorney fees upon a successful defense of an action filed pursuant to Section 145 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 145, in district court (NantKwest Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Acting Director U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 16-1794, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent covering a water recreation board was properly deemed invalid as obvious by a Virginia federal judge, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded July 25 (ZUP Inc. v. Nash Manufacturing Inc., No. 17-1601, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20712).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that canceled all claims of two patents relating to a power distribution module for personal recreational vehicles, including snowmobiles and ATVs, was erroneous, the patent owner argues in an appeal to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products Inc., No. 18-1520, Fed. Cir.).