Posts in Federal Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Tuesday in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., affirming in part and reversing in part a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The CAFC determined that the PTAB correctly found claims 1 through 3, 5 through 13, and 15 through 20 of Centripetal Networks, LLC’s patent directed to network threat detection unpatentable for obviousness. The court reversed the PTAB’s determination regarding claims 4 and 14, finding those claims unpatentable for obviousness as well.

On April 20, Simi Valley, CA-based gaming tablet developer Gamevice filed a response to Japanese game developer Nintendo’s motion to vacate portions of a Northern District of California judgment that had invalidated Gamevice patent claims to handheld computing accessories as anticipated by the Nintendo Switch. While Gamevice acknowledged that it welcomed the vacatur of any adverse invalidity ruling, its filing points out procedural improprieties stemming from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s remand, which Gamevice indicated may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Tuesday in In re Hybir, Inc., dismissing an appeal as moot and leaving intact the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s judgment granting Veeam Software Corp.’s motion to dismiss and holding that the asserted claims of Hybir’s patent were ineligible under Section 101. The CAFC determined that a settlement agreement between Hybir and Veeam Software Corp. rendered the appeal moot because the terms constituted a “side bet” on the appeal’s outcome. The opinion was authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judge Chen and Judge Hughes.

Seven retired federal judges have filed an amicus brief supporting U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman’s Supreme Court petition seeking review of her case against CAFC Chief Judge Kimberly Moore for what she has dubbed Moore’s “unlawful” removal of Newman from her duties on the court. The judges’ amicus brief argues that “permitting misconduct of the sort alleged here to proceed unchecked and unexamined by the federal courts poses a grave threat to the independence of all federal judges, particularly the 50% of judges who are 68 or older.”

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) use of Rule 36 summary affirmances in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). CPC Patent Technologies petitioned the Court in March of this year asking the Justices to consider the question: “Whether the Federal Circuit can affirm a PTAB decision without opinion in contravention of the clear statutory requirement of an ‘opinion’ when reviewing such decisions.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Rebecca Curtin, leaving in place a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that barred her from opposing the trademark registration for “RAPUNZEL” for dolls and toy figures. The Court declined to review the CAFC’s holding that a consumer lacks the statutory entitlement to oppose a trademark registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1063 because such consumer interests fall outside the commercial zone of interests protected by the Lanham Act.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday in International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, reversing the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and patent invalidity claims. The district court had found that Dr. Robert Cornell and several other defendants misappropriated four trade secrets related to cosmetic penile implants, breached a nondisclosure agreement (NDA), and that two patents were invalid for failure to name an inventor. The CAFC reversed the denial of JMOL on those claims but affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL for the defendants with respect to counterfeiting liability.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company, reversing the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of invalidity of Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s headache treatment patents. The district court found that the asserted claims were invalid for failing to satisfy both the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, but the CAFC found the district court’s grant of JMOL improper on both counts. The opinion was authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Cunningham and District Judge Andrews.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Tuesday in Definitive Holdings, LLC v. Powerteq LLC, affirming the United States District Court for the District of Utah’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity of Definitive Holdings’ patent.  The district court found that the asserted claims of the patent owned were invalid under the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Dyk.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision authored by Chief Judge Moore delivering a partial win for patent owner VLSI Technology against Intel Corporation. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Intel’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 8,566,836, titled “Multi-core System on Chip,” and also struck the damages theories of one of VLSI’s expert’s.

In high-stakes patent litigation, post-trial motions are often dismissed as routine clean-up—procedural volleys after the real battle has been fought. That framing does not hold in the battle between Optis Wireless and Apple in the Eastern District of Texas. The filings submitted by the plaintiffs seeking judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or in the alternative for a new trial present a compelling argument that the jury’s verdict is not merely unfavorable, but structurally unsound. When viewed holistically, the record suggests there was meaningful error—or at least confusion—between in the legal standards, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions. Against that backdrop, plaintiffs’ position that it is entitled to either JMOL or a new trial requires fresh consideration.

Amicus briefs have now been posted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) site in Ex Parte Baurin, a 2025 rehearing decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with respect to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) that is being reviewed by an Appeals Review Panel (ARP). While most of the amici are arguing in favor of the Board’s analysis, one brief submitted by Professors Mark Lemley and Lisa Larrimore Oullette contends that U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) precedent supports the examiner’s rejections and that Allergan’s holding is inapplicable here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday in Fuente Marketing Ltd. v. Vaporous Technologies, LLC, affirming the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and holding that the Board correctly dismissed an opposition to a trademark application after finding no likelihood of confusion between the applied-for mark and registered marks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Tuesday in In re Brian McFadden affirming a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The CAFC determined that the PTAB correctly found claim 14 of Brian David McFadden’s patent application directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court agreed that “claim 14 does not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform this abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Since the court affirmed the ineligibility determination, it concluded that it “need not reach anticipation” under 35 U.S.C. § 102.