Mealey's Patents

  • December 15, 2017

    Travelers Tells High Court Review Not Merited In Covered Business Method Suit

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Dec. 11 brief, an insurer asks the U.S. Supreme Court to deny certiorari of a petition over the constitutionality of covered business method (CBM) review proceedings by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), asserting that such reviews of patentability determinations are not jury matters (Integrated Claims Systems LLC v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-330, U.S. Sup.).

  • December 14, 2017

    On Remand, Federal Circuit Rules Unfair Competition Claim Preempted By BPCIA

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 14 deemed allegations by a drug maker that a competitor violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL), Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., preempted by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA), 42 U.S.C. § 262, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e), 28 U.S.C. § 2201(b), 21 U.S.C. § 355 et seq. (Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 15-1499, Fed. Cir.).

  • December 13, 2017

    Barnes & Noble Appeals Taxation Of Costs In EReader Patent Litigation

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A New York federal judge erroneously deemed a patent infringement plaintiff the “prevailing party” in calculating and awarding taxation of costs, Barnes & Noble Inc., barnesandnoble.com LLC and NOOK Media LLC (B&N, collectively) recently told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Adrea LLC v. Barnes & Noble Inc., et al., No. 17-2462, Fed. Cir.).

  • December 13, 2017

    Parties Brief Federal Circuit In Dispute Over Pesticide Production Patent

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Dec. 8 appellee brief, a prevailing patent challenger told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to uphold findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a claimed process for producing the insecticide fipronil would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSA) (Finchimica S.P.A. v. Adama Makhteshim Ltd., No. 17-2195, Fed. Cir.).

  • December 12, 2017

    Patent Board Deems Various Claims Of Entropy Coding Patent Obvious

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Dec. 11 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board partly agreed with Apple Inc. that an entropy coding patent does not pass muster under Section 103 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §103 (Apple Inc. v. FastVDO LLC, No. IPR2016-01203, PTAB).

  • December 12, 2017

    USPTO Files Brief In Rehearing Of Dispute Over Attorney Fee Award

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) urges the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a Nov. 15 brief to uphold its June 2017 ruling that plaintiffs challenging a rejected patent application in court pursuant to Section 145 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 145, should pay “all the expenses of the proceedings” (Nantkwest Inc. v. Joseph A. Matal, Acting Director U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 16-1794, Fed. Cir.).

  • December 12, 2017

    Federal Circuit Affirms: Post-Alice, Patent Case Lacked Merit

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A decision by a patent plaintiff to press on with its allegations in the wake of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, despite knowledge that its claims lacked merit, entitled a defendant in the action to an award of attorney fees, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Dec. 8 (Inventor Holdings LLC v. Bed, Bath & Beyond Inc., No. 16-2442, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24781).

  • December 12, 2017

    Parties In Uber Trade Secrets Suit Won’t Stipulate To Special Master Findings

    SAN FRANCISCO — Parties in a trade secrets lawsuit alleging that a former employee of autonomous car development company Waymo LLC stole the company’s trade secret information and provided it to his new employer, Uber Technologies Inc., on Dec. 7 refused to agree to stipulate to the findings of a special master tasked with determining whether a letter from a former Uber employee shows that Uber hid evidence so that it could not be used at trial (Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 17-0939, N.D. Calif.).

  • December 12, 2017

    Federal Circuit To Hear Oral Arguments In Dispute Over Patent Priority Date

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 13, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) will defend findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that an appellant was not entitled to an earlier priority date through either actual reduction to practice or the exercise of reasonable diligence from conception to constructive reduction to practice (ATI Technologies ULC v. Joseph A. Matal, Performing the Functions and Duties of Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608, Fed. Cir.).

  • December 11, 2017

    Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing; Dissent Calls For Clarification On O2 Micro

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A divided en banc Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 8 refused to rehear a dispute over two communication processing patents, leaving intact a July 2017 ruling that ordered a new trial in the case (NobelBiz Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C., et al., Nos. 16-1104, -1105, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24780).

  • December 11, 2017

    Federal Circuit Partly Reverses Rejection Of Patent Application

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — An examiner’s rejection of six claims of a crossbar processing patent application as indefinite was reversed by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 8 in light of a concession by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that the rejection was erroneous (In re:  Blaise Laurent Mouttet, No. 17-2077, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24844).

  • December 8, 2017

    Board Sides Partly With Petitioner In Covered Business Method Patent Review

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a Dec. 7 ruling deemed 32 claims of a method patent for “Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth” unpatentable pursuant to Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101 (IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International Inc., No. CBM2016-00090, PTAB).

  • December 7, 2017

    Federal Circuit Vacates False Marking Judgment, Affirms In Other Respects

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Florida federal judge’s rejection of allegations a patent owner failed to mark its products was vacated Dec. 7 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that although it is an accused infringer’s duty to produce evidence of unmarked products, it remains a patentee’s duty to prove that the products in question do not practice the patented invention (Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., et al., No. 17-1475, Fed. Cir.).

  • December 7, 2017

    Pedometer Patent Singled Out For Inter Partes Review In New Petition

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A fitness technology company took aim Dec. 5 at a patented pedometer in a petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, asserting that the straps, step-counters, heart-rate monitors, data processors, transmitters and receivers included in the invention were “basic” and “well-known” to a person of skill in the art (POSITA) (Wahoo Fitness LLC v. Blackbird Tech LLC, No. IPR2018-00275, PTAB).

  • December 6, 2017

    Board Cancels Various Claims Of User ID, Access Control Code Tracking Patent

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Dec. 5 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner that various claims of a patented system for conveying geographical information about a person or object to a group of users would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (TV Management Inc., d/b/a GPS North America v. Perdiemco LLC, No. IPR2016-01061, PTAB).

  • December 5, 2017

    Federal Circuit Largely Sides With Patent Board In Consolidated Appeal

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Dec. 5 ruling, the Federal Circuit upheld findings of patent invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in two cases but ruled against the board — and in favor of three inter partes review (IPR) petitioners — in a third case, in which the board deemed the disputed technology patentable (CRFD Research Inc. v. Joseph Matal, No. 16-2198; CRFD Research Inc. v. DISH Network Corp., No. 16-2298; Hulu LLC v. CRFD Research Inc., No. 16-2437, Fed. Cir.).

  • December 5, 2017

    Cattle Insemination Method Patent Is Obvious, Challenger Tells Board

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Dec. 4 petition for inter partes review (IPR), a bovine reproductive technology company argues to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that using sex-sorted sperm to produce two or more embryos of a desired sex is unpatentable pursuant to Sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 (Trans Ova Genetics LC v. XY LLC, No. IPR2018-00249, PTAB).

  • December 4, 2017

    Federal Circuit Upholds Claim Constructions, Obviousness Holding

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that various challenged patent claims would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art were affirmed Nov. 30 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found no error in the board’s differing construction of “internet protocol” and “Internet protocol” (AIP Acquisition LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 16-2371, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24192).

  • December 4, 2017

    Federal Circuit Vacates Obviousness Holding By Board, Sides With Microsoft

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although affirming a construction by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the claim term “request,” the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 1 nonetheless vacated in full the board’s determination that two patents are nonobvious and partly vacated the board’s holding that the patents are not anticipated by prior art (Microsoft Corp., et al., v. Parallel Networks Licensing LLC, Nos. 2016-2515, -2517, -2518, -2519, -2642, -2644, -2645, -2646, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24333).

  • December 4, 2017

    Citing Micron, Federal Circuit Grants Mandamus Petition In Patent Case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Nov. 15 grant of mandamus released Dec. 1, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacated a Minnesota federal judge’s decision to transfer a patent case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (In re:  Cutsforth Inc., No. 17-135, Fed. Cir.).