Posts by admin:
CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
Centripetal sued Cisco for infringement of ten U.S. patents relating to systems that perform computer networking security functions. Cisco petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of many of the asserted claims, and Centripetal subsequently narrowed the claims in the district court proceeding to those not undergoing IPR. The case was originally assigned to Judge Davis, but the court granted Centripetal’s motion to be reassign the case to Judge Morgan, who had recently presided over a jury trial involving related technology and five of the same patents.
- Posted on: Jun 23 2022
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC.
Novartis owns U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 relating to methods of treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) using the immunosuppressant fingolimod, and markets a drug under the brand name Gilenya. HEC Pharm USA Inc. filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Gilenya. Novartis sued HEC, alleging that HEC’s ANDA infringes all claims of the ’405 patent. The district court found that HEC’s ANDA infringes and that the claims are not invalid for inadequate written description of the no-loading-dose or daily dosage limitations.
- Posted on: Jun 21 2022
In Re A. ZETA S.R.L.
Zeta filed an application to register PARMA COFFEE for, among other things, coffee and coffee substitutes. The examining attorney refused registration finding that the proposed mark was primarily geographically descriptive of Parma, Italy. In response, Zeta confirmed that the goods in question are being developed in Parma, Italy, but argued that its mark was not primarily geographically descriptive because third parties held existing U.S. trademark registrations for PARMA in connection with various goods and services. The examining attorney entered a final refusal, and on appeal, the Board affirmed.
- Posted on: Jun 10 2022
PAVO SOLUTIONS LLC v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.
Kingston appeals the District Court’s judgment that Kingston willfully infringed certain claims of Pavo’s U.S. Patent No. 6,926,544 relating to a flash memory apparatus having a single body type rotary cover, and awarding over $7.5MM in compensatory damages, enhanced by 50 percent. On appeal, Kingston’s argues that the district court should not have judicially corrected certain claim language. However, after finding that “pivoting the case with respect to the flash memory main body” contains an obvious minor clerical error, that the correction is not subject to reasonable debate,
- Posted on: Jun 3 2022
CLEARONE, INC. v. SHURE ACQUISITION HOLDINGS
Shure owns U.S. Patent No. 9,565,493 relating to arrays of microphones and housings for the arrays so that the arrays and housings may be fitted into a drop ceiling grid. During inter partes review (IPR), the Board granted Shure’s motion to amend the claims of the ’493 patent and add independent claim 57 that included a “self-similar” limitation that the Board concluded would be understood by a skilled artisan and does not create an ambiguity. ClearOne served a proposed sanctions motion, arguing that Shure’s failure to cite art it relied on in a petition for post-grant review of a different patent which also relates to drop ceiling microphone arrays,
- Posted on: Jun 1 2022
TIGER LILY VENTURES LTD. v. BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.
Tiger Lily, a company with no corporate affiliation to Lehman Brothers (which filed for bankruptcy in 2008) or Barclays (to whom Lehman Brothers assigned all of its trademarks and accompanying goodwill), filed an application for registration of the standard character mark LEHMAN BROTHERS for beer and spirits. A few months later, Barclays filed an application to register the standard character mark LEHMAN BROTHERS for use in connection with various financial services. And not long after that, Tiger Lily filed an application for registration of the same standard character LEHMAN BROTHERS mark for bar services and restaurant services.
- Posted on: Jun 1 2022
ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
Arthrex sued Smith & Nephew (S&N) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,907 relating to a surgical device for attaching soft tissue to bone without requiring the surgeon to tie suture knots. Shortly before trial, S&N petitioned for inter partes review (IPR), and the Board ultimately found that prior art anticipated certain claims. In a previous appeal, Arthrex argued, and the CAFC agreed that the Board lacked constitutional authority to issue the agency’s final decision, but the Supreme Court vacated and remanded.
- Posted on: May 27 2022
Carter, DeLuca & Farrell LLP Proudly Announces David Lee As Partner
Carter, DeLuca & Farrell LLP is pleased to announce the promotion to partnership of David Lee. Mr. Lee has been essential in the development of the firm and we congratulate him on this noteworthy accomplishment.
Mr. Lee has been with the firm since 2016. He is experienced in patent development and counseling, including patentability analysis, application preparation and prosecution in the U.S. and abroad, due diligence investigations for patent portfolio transfer, licensing and royalty agreements, cease and desist demands, freedom-to-operate/right-to-use investigations for product development,
- Posted on: May 25 2022
ETHICON LLC v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.
Ethicon appeals a final written decision issued in two consolidated inter partes review proceedings where the Board concluded that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,844,379 (relating to a surgical stapling instrument that uses an I-beam firing member and a no-cartridge safety lockout) are unpatentable as obvious. On appeal, Ethicon argues that the Board improperly placed the burden on Ethicon as the patentee to disprove that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the prior art,
- Posted on: May 23 2022
KAUFMAN v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Kaufman is a co-inventor on and owns now-expired U.S. Patent No. 7,885,981 relating to methods for using a computer to automatically generate an end-user interface for working with the data in a relational database. Kaufman sued Microsoft, asserting infringement by Microsoft’s Dynamic Data product. A jury found Microsoft liable and awarded damages of $7 million to Kaufman and the district court upheld the verdict against Microsoft’s post-judgment challenges, and it also denied Kaufman’s motion to amend the judgment to include prejudgment interest.
- Posted on: May 20 2022