Posts by admin:
ATEN INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD. v. UNICLASS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
Uniclass and others appeal the District Court’s order denying their motion for attorney fees. Appellants argue that the district court erred in not finding this case exceptional based on ATEN’s disregard for the “foundational policy” of proportionate litigation. The CAFC notes, however, that there is no per se rule that a case is exceptional if litigation costs exceed the potential damages and that the case could have proceeded to trial requesting only an injunction, and there would be no potential damages to compare to ATEN’s expenses.
- Posted on: Aug 6 2019
VIRNETX INC. v. APPLE INC.
After VirnetX sued Apple in district court alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,418,504 and 7,921,211 (both relating to systems and methods for establishing a secure communication link between a first computer and a second computer over a computer network, such as the Internet), Apple requested inter partes reexamination of the patents. Cisco also filed a request for inter partes reexamination with the PTO. The district court action proceeded to trial and a jury found the asserted claims infringed and not invalid.
- Posted on: Aug 1 2019
HYLETE LLC v. HYBRID ATHLETICS, LLC
When Hylete’s design mark for a stylized letter “H” for athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, shorts, jackets, footwear, hats and caps was published for opposition, Hybrid opposed on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with its stylized letter “H” (used in connection with conducting fitness classes; health club services, namely, providing instruction and equipment in the field of physical exercise; personal fitness training services and consultancy; physical fitness instruction). Hybrid also pleaded common law rights from its use of the same mark on athletic apparel, including shirts, hats,
- Posted on: Aug 1 2019
SOLUTRAN, INC. v. ELAVON, INC.
U.S. Bancorp and its affiliate Elavon, Inc. (collectively, U.S. Bank) appeal the district court’s order denying U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment that claims of Solutran’s U.S. Patent No. 8,311,945 (relating to a system and method of electronically processing checks), are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 for failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter. In the first step of an Alice analysis, the CAFC concludes that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check,
- Posted on: Jul 30 2019
CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER
The Coalition for Affordable Drugs (“CFAD”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) challenging the validity of all of the claims of Celgene’s U.S. Patent No. 6,045,501 (relating to methods for delivering a drug (like thalidomide ) to a patient while preventing the exposure of a foetus or other contraindicated individual to the drug) and three petitions for IPR challenging the validity of all of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,315,720 (relating to methods for delivering to a patient in need of the drug,
- Posted on: Jul 30 2019
AMGEN INC. v. COHERUS BIOSCIENCES INC.
Coherus filed an abbreviated Biologic License Application (“aBLA”) seeking FDA approval to market a biosimilar version of Amgen’s pegfilgrastim product Neulasta, a recombinant therapeutic protein that stimulates the production of neutrophils, a type of white blood cell. Amgen sued Coherus based on Coherus’s aBLA, alleging infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (rather than literal infringement) because the salt combination used in Coherus’s process did not match any of the three expressly claimed salt combinations in the asserted method patent. The district court dismissed Amgen’s complaint for failure to state a claim and Amgen appealed.
- Posted on: Jul 29 2019
AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Automotive Body Parts Association (ABPA) sued Ford in district court, seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity or unenforceability of two design patents that protect designs used in certain models of Ford’s F-150 trucks – – one for an ornamental design for the exterior of a vehicle hood and one for an ornamental design for a vehicle head lamp. The inventors of these designs (artists holding Bachelor of Fine Arts degrees) had full control and responsibility for the exterior appearance of the Ford F-150 truck and created and selected part designs based on aesthetic appearance.
- Posted on: Jul 23 2019
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.
In two inter partes review proceedings requested by Samsung, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board upheld all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,917,772 , which is owned by Infobridge and relates encoding and decoding video data for constructing a merge list. The Board upheld the claims because it found that Samsung failed to show that a certain prior art reference was publicly accessible before the ’772 patent’s critical date and thus could not be considered prior art. Samsung appeals the Board’s decisions,
- Posted on: Jul 12 2019
INDIVIOR INC. v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, S.A.
Indivior markets and holds the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for Suboxone® sublingual film, an opioid addiction treatment that combines buprenorphine and the opioid antagonist naloxone. Several generic drug companies filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) to market generic versions of Suboxone Film prior to the expiration of the patents, and Indivior then brought actions for patent infringement, accusing DRL and Watson of infringing the patents. The CAFC finds that Indivior has not shown clear error in the court’s holding that DRL employs conventional top air drying, which is insufficient to meet the drying limitation of the asserted as properly construed.
- Posted on: Jul 12 2019
QUAKE v. LO
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found claims of Quake’s Patent and pending Application unpatentable for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as part of three interference proceedings. The claims cover a method of determining the presence of aneuploidy (a chromosomal abnormality) in fetuses by using massively parallel sequencing (MPS) technology to sequence DNA fragments from a sample of the mother’s blood that contains both maternal and fetal DNA. The claims recite a random MPS method for the detection step, meaning that all the DNA in the sample is sequenced,
- Posted on: Jul 10 2019