About: admin

Posts by admin:

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

General Electric petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,511,605 which is assigned to United Technologies. The Board found the claims not obvious in view of the prior art. GE appeals. However, not every party to an IPR will have Article III standing to appeal a final written decision of the Board, and that to establish standing, an appellant must have suffered an injury in fact that has a nexus to the challenged conduct and that can be ameliorated by the court.

  • Posted on: Jul 10 2019
  • By:

ELBIT SYSTEMS LAND AND C4I LTD v. HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC

 Elbit brought this action against Hughes alleging that Hughes infringed Elbit’s Patent relating to systems for transmitting information from user terminals to a central hub using satellite communication—that direction being called a “reverse link.” The jury found claims infringed and awarded damages. The district court found that the case was exceptional and that Elbit is entitled to attorney’s fees.  Hughes appeals the infringement finding, arguing that its products do not include the claimed “continuous transmission of data” communication means or the switching means, but the CAFC finds that the infringement determination was supported by substantial evidence. 

  • Posted on: Jun 25 2019
  • By:

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC. v. FITBIT, INC.

Cellspin sued Fitbit and others for infringing various claims of four different patents relating to connecting a data capture device, e.g., a digital camera, to a mobile device so that a user can automatically publish content from the data capture device to a website. Fitbit moved to dismiss, arguing that the patents are ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the district court granted these motions and awarded attorney fees to Fitbit. Applying the two-step test of the Alice/Mayo framework, the CAFC agrees with the district court that the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea,

  • Posted on: Jun 25 2019
  • By:

UCB, INC. v. WATSON LABORATORIES INC.

UCB owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,884,434 and 8,232,414, claiming a transdermal therapeutic system comprising rotigotine, a drug used for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, and a polymorph of rotigotine. The FDA approved UCB’s rotigotine transdermal patches, and UCB has been selling the product under the brand name Neupro. Actavis filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for generic versions of transdermal rotigotine patches, and UCB filed suit for infringement.  Actavis appeals the district court’s finding that the generic products of Watson and Actavis infringe the ’434 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.

  • Posted on: Jun 24 2019
  • By:

GAME AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC

UCB owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,884,434 and 8,232,414, claiming a transdermal therapeutic system comprising rotigotine, a drug used for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, and a polymorph of rotigotine. The FDA approved UCB’s rotigotine transdermal patches, and UCB has been selling the product under the brand name Neupro. Actavis filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for generic versions of transdermal rotigotine patches, and UCB filed suit for infringement.  Actavis appeals the district court’s finding that the generic products of Watson and Actavis infringe the ’434 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.

  • Posted on: Jun 21 2019
  • By:

MAYNE PHARMA INTERNATIONAL PTY v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.

Mayne Pharma appeals from the final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in an inter partes review, concluding that certain claims of U.S. Patent 6,881,745 relating to pharmaceutical compositions of azole antifungal drugs are unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. In response to Mayne’s argument that the Board should not have instituted review because the petition was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), the CAFC finds that the Board did not err in allowing Merck to amend its disclosures to add another Merck entity as a real party in interest without altering the petition’s filing date.

  • Posted on: Jun 21 2019
  • By:

FORUM US, INC. v. FLOW VALVE, LLC

Flow Valve’s U.S. Patent No. RE45,878 relates to supporting assemblies, i.e., fixtures, for holding workpieces (such as pipe fittings used in the oil and gas industry) during machining. Forum filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of invalidity of the Reissue patent, contending that the added reissue claims were invalid because they did not comply with the original patent requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 251, and thus that the reissue claims improperly broadened the original patent claims by omitting the “arbor limitations” in violation of the original patent requirement because the patent did not disclose an invention without arbors.

  • Posted on: Jun 17 2019
  • By:

REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF MINN. v. LSI CORPORATION

The Regents of the University of Minnesota appeals from decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declining to dismiss petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of patents directed to particular types of “read channel” chips and their use in telecommunications, particularly for 4G LTE networks. The petitions were alleged to be improper because states supposedly enjoy sovereign immunity in IPR proceedings. While this appeal was pending, this court decided Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., holding that IPR proceedings were not barred by tribal sovereign immunity.

  • Posted on: Jun 14 2019
  • By:

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. v. SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS

Semiconductor Components, doing business as ON Semiconductor (“ON”), petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of several claims of Power Integrations’ U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079 relating to switched mode power supplies that use a “switching regulator” when converting high-voltage alternating current into low-voltage direct current to power electronic devices. Power Integrations argued that the IPR should be time-barred under § 315(b) because ON and Fairchild were in privity at the time of filing and Fairchild had been served with a complaint for infringement more than one year before the petition was filed.

  • Posted on: Jun 13 2019
  • By:

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA

Samsung successfully petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of all claims of Papst Licensing’s U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437 relating to an interface device that achieves high data transfer rates between a data device and a host computer without the need for a user-installed driver specific to the interface device. The Board determined that certain claims are unpatentable as obviousness over a combination of prior art references. Papst appeals, challenging the Board’s construction of the “without requiring” claim limitations and the Board’s finding of the teachings of the prior art.

  • Posted on: May 23 2019
  • By: