Posts in Federal Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found all challenged claims of a Netlist computer memory patent unpatentable as obvious. The court rejected Netlist’s arguments that the Board’s findings lacked substantial evidentiary support and that the Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in reaching its conclusions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on Monday in Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., affirming a district court finding that certain patent claims covering a cancer treatment satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a). The court also granted a motion to dismiss a separate portion of the appeal as moot and vacated the underlying district court judgment on that issue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday handed SpaceTime3D, Inc. mixed results in two nonprecedential decisions involving graphical user interface patents challenged by Apple Inc. and Google LLC, with the outcomes turning largely on differences in the wording of related claims. In Apple Inc., Google LLC  v. SpaceTime3D, Inc., the court affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 but finding claims 14-18 obvious. In a separate appeal, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Google LLC, the CAFC affirmed the Board’s determination that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,304,654 and 9,696,868 were obvious.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss a patent infringement suit on both improper venue and patent ineligibility grounds, holding that the district court was not required to stop its analysis after determining the venue was improper. The opinion was authored by Judge Prost.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. against KAIFI LLC arising from a dispute over a patent settlement agreement, transferring the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In T-Mobile US, Inc. v. KAIFI LLC, Circuit Judge Chen authored the opinion for a panel that included Circuit Judges Taranto and Schall, concluding that the underlying disagreement over settlement contract language did not necessarily raise a substantial question of patent law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two decisions today in related appeals arising from inter partes review (IPR) proceedings between Apple Inc. and Smart Mobile Technologies LLC. In the case, Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, the CAFC affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determination that Apple failed to prove certain claims of two Smart Mobile patents unpatentable as obvious, while vacating and remanding a separate portion of the same judgment that had found other claims obvious. In the companion appeal, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision rejecting Apple’s obviousness challenge to a third related patent. Circuit Judge Stark authored both opinions for a panel that included Circuit Judges Reyna and Hughes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Zilkr Cloud Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., vacating in part and affirming in part a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision. The PTAB had held claims 1, 2, 6 through 8, and 12 through 14 of a patent owned by Zilkr Cloud Technologies, LLC unpatentable as obvious, and the CAFC remanded for further proceedings. The opinion was authored by Chief Judge Moore.

Yesterday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that the agency had designated as informative a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in an ex parte appeal reversing an examiner’s rejection of patent claims directed to the isolation and detection of microRNA (miRNA) to determine a patient’s risk of radiation exposure for improper Markush groupings. Drawing primarily upon case law from the predecessor to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit, the informative designation is notable for its alignment with recent Federal Circuit case law encouraging flexibility in Markush grouping analyses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday issued a precedential decision denying a number of inventors’ associations standing to sue the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for failing to amend alleged inaccurate language on the cover of issued U.S patents. District Judge Rachel Kovner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation, authored the precedential opinion of the court.

Yesterday, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed at the U.S. Supreme Court taking aim at the federal judiciary’s conflation of subject matter eligibility with other areas of the patent statute, a growing concern in U.S. patent law since the Court decided Alice v. CLS Bank International (2014). Arguing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit used a single observation to answer both steps of the Alice/Mayo inquiry, the petitioner urges the Court to correct the Federal Circuit’s replacement of its flexible two-step Section 101 framework with rigid proxies that avoid the evidentiary safeguards of other patentability statutes.

About 20 years ago, Hotels.com had a series of commercials starring a character called “Captain Obvious.” This character would make observations that were funny because they were apparent to all. And that is what non-patent lawyers think of when it comes to something that is obvious. That is also the approach taken in a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) cases, i.e. the “Captain Obvious” approach. Specifically, the recent Nielsen (The Nielsen Co. (US), LLC, v. TVision Insights, Inc., —

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today, authored by Chief Judge Moore, first affirming a district court’s orders dismissing a patent infringement complaint without granting leave to amend and awarding attorney’s fees, and secondly, dismissing an appeal of attorney sanctions for lack of jurisdiction. VDDP, LLC sued Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452, relating to “electrically controlled spectacles.”… The district court dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), denied the motion for leave to amend as futile, denied VDDP’s motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), awarded Volkswagen $207,543.60 in attorney’s fees, and sanctioned VDDP’s counsel, William Peterson Ramey III, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, holding him and VDDP jointly and severally liable for the attorney’s fees.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Parse Biosciences, Inc., affirming three Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that found all challenged claims of three 10x Genomics patents unpatentable as obvious. Circuit Judge Cunningham wrote for the court, joined by Circuit Judges Taranto and Bryson, and rejected each of the four challenges that 10x Genomics raised on appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Robert Bosch LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc., affirming two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that found Robert Bosch and Mercedes-Benz USA failed to prove challenged claims of two fuel injector patents would have been obvious. The court rejected arguments that the PTAB lacked substantial evidence to find that a prior art reference disclosed a flexible membrane capable of flexing during actuation, thereby failing to meet a specific hydraulic link limitation.

A split U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied a request for rehearing or rehearing en banc of a decision issued in February of this year relating to the proper test for determining design patent infringement. In the February precedential decision, the court affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement to Armaid Company, Inc. that its massage product did not infringe Range of Motion Products LLC’s (RoM’s) design patent claims. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham and Chief Judge Moore delivered a dissent in which she claimed her court has caused “the legal frame of reference” in design patent law cases to become “askew.”