About: admin

Posts by admin:

THALER v. VIDAL

Thaler filed two patent applications listing his “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science” (DABUS) artificial intelligence (AI) software system as the sole inventor on both applications. The Patent Office (PTO) concluded both applications were incomplete in that they lacked a valid inventor and sent a “Notice to File Missing Parts of Nonprovisional Application” for each application and requested that Thaler identify valid inventors. In response, Thaler petitioned the PTO director to vacate the Notices, but the PTO denied the petitions on the ground that “a machine does not qualify as an inventor,” and on reconsideration,

  • Posted on: Aug 5 2022
  • By:

REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING v. NETFLIX, INC.

Realtime sued Netflix for infringement in Delaware asserting six patents. Netflix filed seven petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of many of the asserted claims and moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that four of the six asserted patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Netflix fully briefed, and Realtime full responded to, those patent-ineligibility theories. Following institution of all seven IPRs and a recommendation from the Delaware magistrate judge finding claims of four of the patents ineligible under § 101, Realtime voluntarily dismissed the Delaware action.

  • Posted on: Jul 27 2022
  • By:

CAREDX, INC. v. NATERA, INC.

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University owns, and CareDx is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patents  8,703,652, 9,845,497, and  10,329,607, which share the same specification and relate to diagnosing or predicting organ transplant status by using methods to detect a donor’s cell-free DNA (“cfDNA”). CareDx sued Natera and Eurofins Viracor, Inc. alleging infringement, and both defendants moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim due to lack of patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.

  • Posted on: Jul 18 2022
  • By:

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. THALES USA, INC.

Philips and Thales have been negotiating an agreed upon fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) license for standard essential patents (SEPs) that Thales has implemented according to European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) specifications. After negotiations failed, Philips filed an infringement and declaratory action against Thales and an ITC action seeking an exclusion order. Thales filed a breach of contract counterclaim and declaratory counterclaim for a FRAND rate determination, and it moved for a preliminary injunction barring Philips from pursuing its ITC action. The district court denied Thales’ motion. Thales appeals.

  • Posted on: Jul 14 2022
  • By:

LG ELECTRONICS INC. v. IMMERVISION, INC.

LG filed two petitions for inter partes review, each challenging a dependent claim of the U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990 relating to capturing and displaying digital panoramic images. LG’s obviousness arguments relied exclusively on its expert’s calculations and plots using a prescription in the prior art (“Tada”) to show that Tada meets a certain compression and expansion zone limitation of the challenged claims.  ImmerVision’s expert noticed that the aspheric coefficients from Table 3, which corresponds to Tada’s Embodiment 2,

  • Posted on: Jul 1 2022
  • By:

MEENAXI ENTERPRISE, INC. v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY

Coca-Cola purchased Parle (Exports), Limited of Bombay, India (who introduced Thums Up cola Limca lemon-lime soft drink in India in the 1970’s) and acquired Parle’s Indian registrations of the THUMS UP and LIMCA marks. Meenaxi sells beverages to Indian grocers in the United States using the THUMS UP and LIMCA marks. Prior to beginning use of the marks, Meenaxi searched for the marks and found that an application for the THUMS UP mark was abandoned in 1987 and a registration for the LIMCA mark expired in 1996. Meenaxi was granted Registrations for the THUMS UP and LIMCA standard character marks.

  • Posted on: Jun 29 2022
  • By:

STATIC MEDIA LLC v. LEADER ACCESSORIES LLC

Static Media sued Leader for infringing design patent D771,400 for a stadium seat. The district court granted Leader’s motion for summary judgement of noninfringement.  This appeal concerns an alleged violation of a protective order issued by the district court. Static also sued another party, OJ Commerce, alleging infringement of the D400 patent. OJ and Leader decided to enter into a Joint Defense Group (“JDG”) to be governed by a Joint Defense Agreement (“JDA”) and OJ signed a Written Assurance agreeing not to use any information or documents shared except for the purposes of the Static-Leader action pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order in that case.

  • Posted on: Jun 28 2022
  • By:

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
  • By:

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
  • By:

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
  • By: