About: admin

Posts by admin:

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY v. GAMON PLUS, INC.

Campbell Soup appeals the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding Appellants did not demonstrate that the claimed designs of Gamon’s U.S. Design Patent Nos. D612,646 and D621,645 (relating to gravity feed dispenser displays) would have been obvious over U.S. Patent No. D405,622 (“Linz”) and G.B. Patent Application No. 2,303,624 (“Samways”). To determine whether one of ordinary skill would have combined teachings of the prior art to create the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design, the fact finder must first find a single reference,

  • Posted on: Sep 26 2019
  • By:

SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.

SIPCO appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a covered business method (CBM) review of its U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842 (relating to devices for communicating information from a previously unconnected, remote device to a central location using a two-step communication path through a set of intermediate nodes). After instituting CBM review, the Board found certain claims of the ’842 patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. SIPCO appeals these findings, as well as the Board’s determination that the ’842 patent was subject to CBM review. 

  • Posted on: Sep 25 2019
  • By:

INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES, INC v. IANCU

Intra-Cellular Therapies appeals the District Court’s summary judgment decision affirming the patent term adjustment (PTA) determination made by the United States Patent Office. During prosecution of Intra-Cellular’s patent application, the Patent Office issued a final Office action rejecting some claims and objecting to the others. A final Office action, as opposed to a non-final Office action, marks the end of formal prosecution of an application. On the three-month deadline for responding to the final Office action, Intra-Cellular filed its first response. While timely, this initial response continued to argue the merits of the examiner’s final rejections and failed to comply with the Patent Office’s regulatory requirements for what constitutes a proper “reply” to a final Office action.

  • Posted on: Sep 18 2019
  • By:

INSPIRED DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. INSPIRED PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC

 Inspired Development Group sued KidsEmbrace for breach of contract and other related state law claims in federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The parties entered into an Exclusive Patent Licensing Agreement, which granted KidsEmbrace an exclusive license to practice Inspired’s design patents to commercialize car seats in the shape of cartoon and comic book characters in exchange for certain royalties. The district court granted summary judgment in KidsEmbrace’s favor on certain claims and Inspired Development appealed to the U.S.

  • Posted on: Sep 18 2019
  • By:

MAYO FOUNDATION v. IANCU

The Mayo Foundation appeals from a District Court decision which affirmed the United States Patent Office’s calculation of patent term adjustment (“PTA”) for U.S. Patent 8,981,063 (relating to antibodies purportedly useful for treating disease conditions characterized by immunosuppression: e.g., cancer, AIDS) under 35 U.S.C. § 154. Upon issuance of the patent, the PTO calculated a PTA of 621 days, with no B Delay. Mayo filed a request for redetermination, claiming that it was due 685 days, because the examiner’s sua sponte reopening of prosecution after termination of the interference was not RCE time since RCE time ends once the PTO takes an official action indicating that all the pending claims are allowable and closes prosecution and under PTO regulations a declaration of an interference comprises such an indication of allowability.

  • Posted on: Sep 16 2019
  • By:

HENNY PENNY CORPORATION v. FRYMASTER LLC

Henny Penny appeals from the inter partes review decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding certain claims of U.S. Patent 8,497,691 (relating to a system for measuring the state of cooking oil degradation in a deep fryer with a TPM sensor) not unpatentable as obvious. Henny Penny argues that the Board procedurally erred by too narrowly construing the petition, but the CAFC concludes that the Board did not abuse its discretion in disregarding Henny Penny’s entirely new rationale for why a claim would have been obvious first raised in reply. 

  • Posted on: Sep 12 2019
  • By:

CURVER LUXEMBOURG, SARL v. HOME EXPRESSIONS INC.

Curver Luxembourg is the assignee of U.S. Design Patent No. D677,946 entitled “Pattern for a Chair” and claiming an overlapping “Y” design as an “ornamental design for a pattern for a chair.” The design patent’s figures, however, merely illustrate the design pattern disembodied from any article of manufacture. Curver sued Home Expressions alleging that Home Expressions made and sold baskets that incorporated Curver’s claimed design pattern and thus infringed the ’946 patent. Home Expressions moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that its accused baskets could not infringe because the asserted design patent was limited to chairs only.

  • Posted on: Sep 12 2019
  • By:

BOARD OF REGENTS v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

The University of Texas (UT) and TissueGen sued Boston Scientific for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,596,296 and 7,033,603, which are directed to implantable drug-releasing biodegradable fibers. The district court determined that venue was improper and transferred the case to the District of Delaware. UT, acting as an arm of the State of Texas, appeals the district court’s transfer order on several grounds relating to its rights as a sovereign entity. The CAFC holds that, as a threshold matter, they have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under the collateral order doctrine because UT challenges the district court’s transfer order based on state sovereignty and the district court’s transfer order fits within the small class of judgments excepted from the final judgment rule.

  • Posted on: Sep 5 2019
  • By:

ALLERGAN SALES, LLC v. SANDOZ, INC.

Allergan sued Appellants Sandoz and Alcon, asserting that Sandoz’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for a generic version of Allergan’s ophthalmic drug Combigan® infringes Allergan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,770,453, 9,907,801, and 9,907,802 relating to the topical ophthalmic use of brimonidine in combination with timolol for treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The district court found limiting a number of “wherein” clauses in the patents because they are material to patentability and express the inventive aspect of the claimed invention, and granted Allergan’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Sandoz appeals,

  • Posted on: Aug 29 2019
  • By:

ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.

In an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled claims 10 and 11 of Arthrex’s U.S. Patent No. 8,821,541 (relating to a surgical suture anchor used to reattach soft tissue to bone) invalid. In doing so, the Board employed different language than Smith & Nephew’s petition to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art. Arthrex asserts that the Board’s impermissible reliance on a new theory of motivation to combine in its final written decision warrants reversal.

  • Posted on: Aug 21 2019
  • By: