Posts in Courts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two decisions today affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that found claims of three patents owned by Slingshot Printing LLC unpatentable as obvious. The rulings, issued in Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., followed a set of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Inc. brought against Slingshot’s printhead patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd., affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that upheld the validity of several claims covering a biometric access control system. ASSA ABLOY AB and its affiliates, including HID Global Corp., ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions, Inc., and Master Lock Company LLC, argued the Board misconstrued a key claim term and ignored one of its unpatentability theories, but the CAFC found neither argument persuasive.

The full U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday, titled “From Genes to Machines: the Patent Eligibility Debate,” during which witnesses testified about the pros and cons of reforming U.S. patent eligibility law, with human genome patentability featuring as a key sticking point. While the hearing became heated at times—mostly over the peripheral topic of drug pricing—witnesses and Committee members ultimately seemed willing to work together on language that might move the bill forward.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Monday in Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., vacating a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that upheld two claims of a voice browsing patent owned by Parus Holdings, Inc. The court found that the Board made multiple errors under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in rejecting Google’s obviousness challenge and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, last week granted in part and denied in part a professional trumpet player’s motion for leave to amend his complaint that challenges Apple’s APPLE trademark for entertainment services. Judge DeMarchi concluded that the standard had only been met in limited respects and ruled that Bertini may pursue two narrow fraud claims, while his remaining theories were rejected.

As the full Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to hold a major hearing on the state of U.S. patent eligibility law tomorrow, Amy Semet, Associate Professor of Law at the University at Buffalo School of Law, through her affiliation with the IP Policy Institute, has published a research paper providing the first empirical data on subject matter eligibility issues for artificial intelligence (AI) patents asserted in U.S. district court litigation. The research paper finds that not only are AI inventions invalidated at a higher rate than non-AI inventions, but also, unexpectedly, that obviousness invalidations for AI patents are low due to an incredibly high rate of subject matter eligibility invalidations in the sector.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a per curiam decision today in Tramec Sloan LLC v. Surti, dismissing an appeal brought by patent owner Tarun N. Surti after finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judges Lourie and Hughes decided the case per curiam, and no concurring or dissenting opinion accompanied the ruling.

When the Senate Judiciary Committee examines the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)      this week, lawmakers won’t simply be debating patent law. They’ll be deciding whether America remains the best place in the world to invent tomorrow’s technologies. That question has taken on new urgency following a series of Supreme Court decisions. In the wake of those rulings, inventors, investors, and even judges have struggled to determine whether many groundbreaking discoveries qualify for patent protection.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday in Intellectual Pixels Limited v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that held claims 1 through 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,109 unpatentable as obvious. The ruling followed a second final written decision the Board issued after the case was remanded from an earlier Federal Circuit appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in a precedential decision, on Thursday affirmed a district court ruling that found certain claims of Wyeth LLC’s two patents for methods of cancer treatment invalid for lack of enablement. Wyeth sued AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals in September 2021, alleging that AstraZeneca induced infringement of its U.S. Patents 10,603,314 and 10,596,162 “based on marketing, distribution, and sales of its irreversible EGFR inhibitor Tagrisso (osimertinib).”

This week, several amicus briefs were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supporting defendant-appellees Amgen in an antitrust suit brought by rival pharmaceutical firm Sandoz, which is appealing the dismissal of its complaint by the Eastern District of Virginia. Amici, including former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, free market institute Washington Legal Foundation, and trade organizations representing the pharmaceutical industry, all strongly urge the Fourth Circuit to dismiss Sandoz’s attempt to circumvent adverse patent rulings with an overly broad antitrust theory that would disrupt the entire U.S. patent system.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision from an ex parte reexamination that found claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,039,483 anticipated and therefore unpatentable.

Broad functional genus claiming was previously a standard strategy for innovators seeking IP protection for antibodies. Prior guidance from the USPTO, including the “newly characterized antigen” test, encouraged broad claiming of antibodies based upon their function alone. For decades, that effectively allowed innovators to claim much more than they in fact discovered in practice. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Amgen decision, courts have adopted the reasoning articulated in Amgen to strike down functional genus antibody claims for lacking either enablement or written description.

Trademark law has traditionally protected the most recognizable aspects of a brand: names, logos, and slogans. Increasingly, however, companies are asking courts to protect something far less tangible, the overall identity consumers associate with a brand. Colors, product aesthetics, marketing campaigns, and even the timing of a product launch have become valuable commercial assets in their own right. The recently filed lawsuit between 7-Eleven and Nike illustrates how modern trademark disputes are moving beyond conventional source identifiers and into the realm of brand identity itself.