WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 7 found that a patent owner is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Texas, where several plaintiffs seek a declaration of noninfringement (Jack Henry & Associates Inc., et al. v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC, No. 16-2700, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. —The operators of several travel websites on Dec. 6 requested institution of inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of an International Business Machines patent directed to a method of providing users with a single-sign-on in a federated computing environment (Expedia Inc., et al. v. International Business Machines Corp., No. IPR2019-00404, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Dec. 4 instituted inter partes review (IPR) of a patent directed to a camera lens assembly (Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd., No. IPR2018-01140, PTAB).
BOSTON — Citing the existence of genuine disputes of material fact, a Massachusetts federal judge on Dec. 3 denied a request for partial summary judgment on the question of patent inventorship, reserving the issue for a bench trial slated to begin Jan. 2 (Egenera Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 16-11613, D. Mass., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204092).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Counsel for the owner of a patented drug for reducing nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy told the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 4 that its private licensing agreement with a distributor did not constitute a sale for purposes of triggering the on-sale bar under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) (Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., No. 17-1229, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Nov. 29 mandamus petition seeking reversal of a decision by U.S. Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas that denied dismissal of a patent case for improper venue was itself denied Nov. 30 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (In re: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and BMW of North America LLC, No. 19-108, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33970).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Kansas federal judge’s decision to uphold a jury’s $140 million award on behalf of patent owner Sprint Communications Co. L.P. was affirmed Nov. 30 by a panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al., No. 17-2247, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33594).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 14 agreed to allow the United States to weigh in on a constitutional challenge to the Leahy Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), in which an appellant alleges that inter partes review (IPR) should be disallowed for patents issued before the statute’s passage (OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Apotex Inc., et al., No. 18-1925, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Nov. 27 motion for rehearing, a patent owner tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it impermissibly altered its construction of corresponding structure for a communication module limitation in a wireless internet patent between its decision to institute inter partes review (IPR) and its final written decision (T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Barkan Wireless Access Technologies L.P., No. IPR2017-01099, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Nov. 29 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a Tennessee federal judge that an action seeking a declaration of noninfringement must be dismissed where the patent owner has not sought to enforce its patents in that forum (Maxchief Investments Limited v. Wok & Pan Industries Inc., No. 18-1121, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — On Nov. 21, a patent owner moved the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to rehear its decision to institute inter partes review in response to a petition by Apple Inc. (Apple Inc. v. Agis Software Development LLC, No. IPR2018-00819, PTAB).
TACOMA, Wash. — A company that sells apps and Bluetooth-enabled products for home food preparation was ordered to provide the source code for its products on Nov. 26, with a Washington federal judge deeming the code relevant to patent infringement claims brought by a rival company in granting in part a motion to compel (Perfect Co. v. Adaptics Limited, No. 3:14-cv-05976, W.D. Wash., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199728).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent reply brief, the owners of a patent covering Suboxone in sublingual film form tell the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a Delaware federal judge erred in finding that inventors disavowed any particular drying method (Indivior Inc., et al. v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, No. 18-1949, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A claimed system and method for accelerating data transfer between a network and storage unit would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled Nov. 26 in a win for Intel Corp. (Intel Corp. v. Alacritech Inc., No. IPR2017-01392, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A refusal by the International Trade Commission (ITC) to modify or rescind its assessment of a $6.2 million civil penalty for violating a consent order involving a patent later declared invalid was reversed and remanded Nov. 27 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (DBN Holding Inc. and BDN LLC v. International Trade Commission, No. 17-2128, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Nov. 26 ruling, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that BMW of North America LLC failed to establish that it will likely prevail on its assertion that five claims of an audio device integration system patent would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (BMW of North America LLC v. Blitzsafe of Texas LLC, No. IPR2018-01204, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Nov. 20 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that a Delaware federal judge’s determination of patent invalidity with regard to five patents covering an attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) drug was based upon “inadequate” fact finding (Tris Pharma Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories Inc., Nos. 2017-2557, -2559, -2560, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32774).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 19 found that “although a close question,” a California federal judge did not err in denying a defendant judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) with regard to induced patent infringement (Enplas Display Device Corporation v. Seoul Semiconductor Company, No. 16-2599, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32625).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Palo Alto Networks Inc. on Nov. 19 partly prevailed before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in its consolidated appeal of two inter partes reviews (IPRs) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Palo Alto Networks Inc. v. Finjan Inc., Nos. 2017-2314, -2315, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32624).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that confirmed the patentability of a claimed rinseable “splash shield” for mixers and blenders was affirmed Nov. 16 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Hamilton Beach Brands Inc. v. f’real! Foods LLC, No. 18-1274, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32432).