ABC Corp. v. Tomoloo Official, Appeal Nos. 2021-2277, -2355, -2150 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 28, 2022) ABC Corp. v. eBay, Inc., Appeal No. 2022-1071 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 28, 2022) The following summary covers two decisions issued the same day, dealing with preliminary injunctions issued from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in a single litigation. In one of those decisions, the Federal Circuit examined the notice requirement under FRCP 65(a) and held it was not met ...
Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, Appeal No. 2020-1441 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered, and rejected, new constitutional challenges to the structure and funding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). Judge Newman concurred with the majority that the Board’s decision should be remanded for Director approval under United States v. Arthrex, Inc ...
Weisner v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2228 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2022) In its only precedential patent case this last week, the Federal Circuit again revisited the thresholds for disposing of cases under Section 101, brought on a motion to dismiss. In a split decision, the Court affirmed the dismissal of two patents, but reversed the district court concerning two other patents, all of which shared the same specification ...
Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1963 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2022) In its only precedential patent case this week, the Federal Circuit disposed of an appeal, holding that the district court’s claim construction was wrong. In the appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Federal Circuit addressed the meaning of the term “magazine catch bar” in the asserted claims ...
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1070 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2022) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s bench trial finding that claims of a pharmaceutical patent were supported by adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ...
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Appeal Nos. 2020-1475, -1605 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal from the International Trade Commission affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s finding that 10X’s products violated the Tariff Act by infringing multiple patents and that they did not infringe another ...
Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2164 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit revisited its decision in Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998), often cited for the proposition that a patentee does not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum merely by sending correspondence asserting patent infringement by a resident of the forum ...
Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-2087 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2021) The Federal Circuit issued a single precedential patent case this week. The district court set aside a judgement and injunction originally in favor of Zinus and against Cap Export, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3), in light of apparently fraudulent testimony offered by a critical witness. In a rare decision addressing Rule 60, the Federal Circuit affirmed ...
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Appeal No. 2020-1785 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2021) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent decision this week comes on appeal from the International Trade Commission, where an Administrative Law Judge found infringement of multiple patents and the Commission issued a limited exclusion order related to sample preparation ...
Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC v. Crocs, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1167 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2021) The Federal Circuit issued a single precedential patent case this week—a modified version of a non-precedential order issued February 11, 2021 concerning substitution of a successor company for a bankrupt company in PTAB proceedings. The modified version of the order has been designated precedential, with a dissenting opinion issued by Judge O’Malley ...
Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Elec. Co., Appeal No. 2020-1755 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2021) In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit issued an important ruling about the issue of enablement as it applies to prior references used in an obviousness analysis. Raytheon owned a patent related to gas turbine engines ...
Apple Inc. v. Vidal, Appeal No. 2022-1249 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit allowed Apple’s challenge to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Fintiv rules to proceed, at least on limited grounds regarding whether in promulgating the guidelines the USPTO failed to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act ...
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2168 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week focuses on the written description requirement in the context of an anticipation analysis in the chemical arts. Specifically, it concerns whether disclosures in asserted prior art were sufficient to disclose a claimed molecular structure ...
Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1186 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a permanent injunction requiring appellant Jazz Pharmaceuticals to de-list its U.S. Patent No. 8,731,963 from the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalents Evaluation publication, colloquially known as the “Orange Book ...
Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1146 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2023) In an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the district court properly granted a preliminary injunction restricting Lite-Netics, LLC’s patent-related speech ...
CyWee Grp. Ltd. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 20-1565 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2023) In its only precedential patent case this week, the Federal Circuit addressed last gasp efforts by CyWee to salvage its IPR losses to Google. The arguments, residual Appointments Clause arguments following Supreme Court and Federal Circuit opinions in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, were rejected by the Court, which affirmed. In June 2018, Google filed petitions for IPR. The Board instituted the IPRs ...
In re: Google LLC, Appeal No. 2023-101 (Fed. Cir. 2023) In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week, the Court granted mandamus reversing yet another decision by Western District of Texas Judge Alan D. Albright refusing to transfer a patent case out of his court, which (like several of Judge Albright’s prior decisions) denied transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ...
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-2275 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2023) Our Case of the Week focuses on the doctrine of prosecution laches. Following a bench trial on the issue held shortly after the Federal Circuit’s decision in Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the district court found Personalized Media Communications’ patent unenforceable under the doctrine ...
Dionex Softron GmbH v. Agilent Techs., Inc., Appeal No. 21-2372 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 2023) This week’s Case of the Week, the only precedential patent opinion issued by the Federal Circuit this week, focused primarily on the corroboration requirement for relevant dates of invention. The Court held there was sufficient evidence of a reduction to practice as of a given date, based primarily on corroboration of multiple witnesses, notwithstanding limited documentary evidence ...
International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al., Appeal No. 2021-2350 (Fed. Cir. 2022) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings that IBM’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,158,789 (the ’789 patent) and 7,187,389 (the ’389 patent) are drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ...
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-1484, -1485, -1518, -1519 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2022) In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concisely affirmed an award of attorneys’ fees for gamesmanship that can be politely characterized as “impermissible forum shopping.” Judge Reyna dissented because he did not think the sanctions went far enough ...
CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1027, -1028 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2022) In its only precedential patent opinion this week, the Federal Circuit held patents directed to the detection of organ transplant failure to be ineligible under Section 101. The patents at issue were all owned by Stanford University and licensed to CareDx. The patents concern the detection of organ transplant failure. When a transplanted organ is rejected, the body releases cfDNA ...
LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2037, -2038 (Fed. Cir. 2022) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit considered how to treat a prior art reference in which the alleged teaching of a claim element would be understood by a skilled artisan not to be an actual teaching, but rather an error of a typographical or similar nature ...
In last week’s only precedential opinion issued in a patent case, the Federal Circuit reversed contempt and sanctions orders entered by the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin following defendant’s alleged violations of a stipulated protective order governing discovery. This case offers useful guidance for patent litigants contemplating a coordinated defense with similarly-situated parties in other litigation ...
Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-1942, -1975 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2022) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reviewed an IPR decision and addressed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s consideration of certain evidence submitted to supplement a prior art disclosure. The Court also found that the Board violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by failing to sufficiently explain its rationale concerning its obviousness determinations ...
