Posts Tagged: "obviousness"

On May 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida affirming the Southern District of Florida’s dismissal of patent owner mCom IP’s complaint after finding the asserted patent claims obvious on the same grounds as related patent claims invalidated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). However, the Federal Circuit found that the district court improperly concluded that the case was exceptional, leading the appellate court to reverse the attorney’s fee award and attorney sanctions after finding the plaintiff did not develop evidence of frivolous litigation conduct.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC, affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating in part a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The CAFC determined that the PTAB improperly construed a limitation of one independent claim but correctly construed limitations of other independent claims. The court reversed the finding of non-obviousness for claim 1, vacated the judgment regarding its dependent claims, and affirmed the finding of non-obviousness for the remaining claims.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma announced they have entered into a global settlement with Moderna, Inc. that could result in a payment of up to $2.5 billion. The announcement stated that the settlement resolves all U.S. and international patent litigation concerning the unauthorized use of Genevant’s and Arbutus’ lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery technology in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines. The agreement came just days before a highly anticipated jury trial was scheduled to begin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on February 20 affirmed two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings upholding claims of Netlist, Inc.’s patent.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Tuesday granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment in Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. Moderna, Inc., narrowing the invalidity defenses that Moderna can assert at a jury trial. U.S. District Judge Joshua D. Wolson precluded Moderna from challenging several Arbutus patents on obviousness and derivation grounds but found that Moderna had raised a genuine factual dispute regarding enablement that must be resolved by a jury.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, concluding that the board did not err in finding claims of two Eagle View Technologies, Inc. patents unpatentable as obvious. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. had appealed the PTAB’s decisions, which held that claims of its U.S. Patent Nos. 8,670,961 and 8,078,436 were obvious over a combination of prior art references. The patents, both titled “Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods,” share a common specification and relate to systems and methods that allow estimates involving roofs on buildings to be created remotely. The patents teach remotely generating a roof estimate report by analyzing multiple aerial images of a building to determine the area, shape, and slope of the roof.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a nonprecedential ruling in CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd. v. ASSA ABLOY AB reversing an obviousness determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) over a dissent by Circuit Judge Evan Wallach from the majority’s analysis of the PTAB’s factual findings on prior art disclosures. Although the reversal gives CPC Patent another opportunity to salvage patent claims to biometric card security systems, the CAFC also issued a Rule 36 summary affirmance affirming the invalidity of other claims from the patent-at-issue, while the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert to a CPC Patent petition challenging the CAFC’s Rule 36 practice in separate PTAB appeals.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday in Motorola Mobility LLC v. Largan Precision Co., Ltd. affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that upheld claims 1-27 of Largan Precision Co., Ltd.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,696,519, which Motorola Mobility LLC had challenged via inter partes review (IPR).

Patrick Kilbride argues for a system where novel work is protected by law, honoring the American founders’ vision that property rights should be tied to labor. Kilbride asserts, “Innovation is just an economic activity. What sets it apart is its complexity, requiring time, resources, and the right environment to flourish.” He stressed the global necessity for environments that support innovation, highlighting the shared human instinct to create and solve problems. He also explained that if an individual creates something demonstrably new, they deserve ownership and protection, reinforcing the essential role of strong IP laws in the economy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that claims of DexCom, Inc.’s patent for implantable glucose sensors were unpatentable as obvious. The CAFC opinion was authored by Judge Nina Y. Wang of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.

On Friday, August 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC vacating the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s preliminary injunction order preventing Sharda from importing, selling or distributing its “WINNER” insecticide. The Federal Circuit found that the district court’s grant of injunctive relief rested on an erroneous claim construction for “composition” that failed to take into account the removal of references to stable compositions from the specification of the asserted patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed a district court’s finding that Netflix, Inc. had proven the challenged claims of CA, Inc.’s patent for distributed computing technology obvious. The opinion was authored by U.S. District Judge Jennifer Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday in a precedential decision authored by Judge Taranto affirmed a New Jersey district court’s ruling that Teva Pharmaceuticals USA did not prove the asserted claims of Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ patent for dosing regimens of antipsychotic medications invalid for obviousness.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday, May 16, reversed a district court’s decision granting summary judgment of non-infringement for Apple. The CAFC found that, under the district court’s broad construction of the term “widget,” Fintiv, Inc. had presented enough evidence to “create a genuine issue of material fact that a widget exists in the accused products,” and therefore potentially infringed.