Posts Tagged: "Federal Circuit"

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 win for TikTok, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(c) motion holding 10Tales, Inc.’s targeted content patent claims invalid as ineligible under Section 101. The opinion was authored by Judge Reyna. 10Tales sued TikTok and ByteDance in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030, which generally covers “a system for customizing or personalizing content based on user social network information.”

On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on Thursday reaffirmed its decision that The Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Broad”) were the first inventors of the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in eukaryotic cells.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Ascendis Pharma A/S v. BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., affirming a district court order that upheld the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decision denying Ascendis’s motion for a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(2). The ruling concluded that Ascendis was not entitled to a mandatory stay because Ascendis voluntarily dismissed its original complaint and filed a virtually identical refiled complaint to restart the statutory deadline. Judge Stoll authored the opinion, joined by Judges Lourie and Chen.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted the Solicitor General’s motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a case concerning induced patent infringement in the pharmaceutical skinny label context. The order followed the filing of a merits response brief by Amarin on March 20, defending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that found Amarin plausibly alleged that Hikma Pharmaceuticals actively induced infringement of patents covering uses of Amarin’s cardiovascular drug Vascepa.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list denying a petition for writ of certiorari filed by inventor Noah Healy to challenge rulings upholding a patent examiner’s subject matter eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Healy’s pro se petition challenged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision to affirm the examiner’s rejection as violating the meaningful review requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) due to conflicting statutory theories on patentability that were never sufficiently explained by the agency.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision on Friday in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, affirming a final determination that Apple violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The CAFC determined that the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly concluded that Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc., proved that Apple violated Section 337 through the sale and import of certain Apple Watch models, ultimately “finding no error in the Commission’s domestic industry determination, its validity rulings, or its infringement findings.” The CAFC also held that the asserted patents were not unenforceable due to prosecution laches.

The latest chapter in the long-running saga of inventor Gil Hyatt is beginning to unfold. The current fight is over prosecution laches—and whether the doctrine even exists. In his last appeal to the Federal Circuit, Hyatt argued that prosecution laches is not available in Section 145 proceedings because it is inconsistent with the Patent Act of 1952, as confirmed by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (2014) and SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products (2017). Whether Hyatt is correct about prosecution laches being inconsistent with the 1952 Patent Act, it is clear that the Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled in both Petrella and SCA that laches simply does not exist when there is a statutorily prescribed timeframe to act.

In 2008, a medical device company I represented, Datascope Corporation, won a hard-fought victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That court reversed a verdict of patent infringement rendered by a federal jury in Baltimore in a suit brought by Johns Hopkins University and its licensee against my client. Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp., 543 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a decision in Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., affirming a district court’s dismissal of AIT’s patent infringement suit against Salesforce for lack of constitutional standing. The court determined that the district court correctly concluded that Applications in Internet Time, LLC (AIT) had no exclusionary patent rights at the inception of the lawsuit. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable relief to cure the constitutional standing defect.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review its case against U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Chief Judge Kimberly Moore for what the NCLA dubs the “unlawful” removal of Newman from her duties on the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued two precedential decisions in The Trustees of Columbia University of the City of New York v. Gen Digital Inc., reversing, vacating and remanding a district court judgment that Columbia’s patent claims were patent eligible in one, and reversing a contempt order against the Defendant’s counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, in another.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Richard Gramm, Reaper Solutions LLC v. Deere & Company, reversing a district court’s judgment of invalidity due to indefiniteness. The court determined that the district court improperly restricted the corresponding structure of a means-plus-function claim limitation to a structure that was not necessary to perform the recited function. The court also held that no algorithm disclosure was required, since an older version of the accused structure used logic circuitry rather than a microprocessor.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by LED lighting developer Lynk Labs to challenge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s ruling last January upholding the invalidation of Lynk Labs’ patent claims. The Supreme Court’s denial leaves in place the Federal Circuit’s determination that U.S. patent applications are prior art as of their filing date in inter partes review (IPR) validity proceedings conducted under the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) statute.