Posts Tagged: "CAFC"

Yesterday, in a precedential decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a district court ruling that upheld the validity of several claims in two Amgen patents and barred Sandoz and Zydus from producing generic versions of Amgen’s psoriasis drug Otezla until 2028. The CAFC ruling also upheld the district court’s ruling that three claims in Amgen’s U.S. Patent 10,092,541 were invalid. However, that did not stop Amgen from declaring victory in the case in a press release.

On April 17, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by pharmaceutical developer Novartis seeking to overturn a decision on rehearing by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that invalidated patent claims covering the blockbuster multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment, Gilenya. The cert denial leaves in place a CAFC decision derided by commentators as “procedural insanity” and increases the focus upon certain machinations at the appellate court bearing the fingerprints of Chief Judge Kimberly Moore.

On Wednesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a district court’s dismissal of a Florida vape company’s patent lawsuit against tobacco company Phillip Morris. Healthier Choices Management (HCM) filed the appeal to the CAFC after a district court ruled in Phillip Morris’s favor, dismissing the patent infringement case. HCM alleged that Phillip Morris infringed on its patent for an electronic pipe, U.S. Patent No. 10,561,170. The CAFC reversed the district court’s dismissal of the original complaint and its denial of HCM’s motion to amend the complaint. Additionally, the appeals court vacated the award of attorneys’ fees to Phillip Morris.

Trademark applicant Charger Ventures LLC has lost its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB’s) finding that SPARK LIVING is likely to be confused with an earlier-registered mark, SPARK. The precedential decision was authored by Judge Reyna. Both marks cover real estate services, but Charger amended its application to specify residential real estate services, whereas the earlier mark specified services related to commercial real estate property. Charger also disclaimed the term “LIVING” in response to the examiner’s request. However, the examiner ultimately issued a final office action refusing the application on the grounds that “a comparison of the respective marks show[s] that they are comprised either in whole or significant part of the term ‘SPARK,’”…and both marks are for real estate services, with ‘overlapping identifications of leasing and rental management services.’”

On April 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling in Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc. reversing part of a District of Delaware ruling invalidating digital storage patent claims owned by Sequoia under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although the ruling restores Sequoia’s rights to the patent claims at issue in the case, the Federal Circuit affirmed portions of the district court’s claim construction order that had supported a finding that Dell and other defendants did not infringe upon Sequoia’s asserted patent claims.

IPWatchdog has learned from several sources this week that U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Chief Judge Kimberly Moore has filed a judicial complaint against Judge Pauline Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. According to those who have seen the complaint, Moore is claiming she has probable cause to believe that Newman is unable to effectively discharge the duties of her office. Sources tell IPWatchdog that Chief Judge Moore primarily makes two separate allegations against Judge Newman. First, that Judge Newman is slow to issue opinions, which affects the administration of justice. Second, Moore has apparently heard stories from colleagues and others at the court that cause her to have concerns about Judge Newman’s overall ability to serve. Numerous staff and colleagues with knowledge of the complaint filed against Newman have contacted IPWatchdog to both confirm the filing of the complaint and to vehemently oppose the allegations being made about Judge Newman’s competence.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed in a precedential decision the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that Moderna Therapeutics proved certain claims of Arbutus Biopharma Corporation’s mRNA delivery patent invalid as anticipated. U.S. Patent No. 9,404,127 is titled “Non-liposomal Systems for Nucleic Acid Delivery” and is directed to “an invention that provides stable nucleic acid-lipid particles (‘SNALP’) that have a non-lamellar structure and ‘comprise a nucleic acid . . . methods of making the SNALP, and methods of delivering and/or administering the SNALP.’” SNALP has a three-dimensional structure that is either a lamellar morphology or non-lamellar (pictured).

On April 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a trio of Rule 36 judgments that summarily affirmed a series of final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Rule 36 summary affirmances at the Federal Circuit have been a growing problem in the realm of U.S. patent law over the better part of the last decade. Without the benefit of an appellate court’s reasoned analysis of arguments raised on appeal, IP attorneys and professionals are left grasping for answers from PTAB rulings without knowing for certain whether the PTAB’s construction of obviousness doctrine is proper.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision holding that SAS Institute , Inc. failed to establish copyrightability of its asserted software program elements. Judge Newman dissented, arguing the ruling “contravenes the Copyright Act and departs from the long-established precedent and practice of copyrightability of computer programs” and that it represents a “far-reaching change.”

On Wednesday, April 5, the United States Solicitor General (SG) recommended that the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari in two patent eligibility cases in order to “clarify the proper reach and application of the abstract-idea exception to patent eligibility under Section 101.” The SG filed the same brief in each of the two cases, Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electric Oy and David A. Tropp v. Travel Sentry, Inc. et. al.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential opinion today affirmed a district court’s judgment that AT&T Mobility LLC did not infringe an inventor’s wireless communications technology patent but held that AT&T had forfeited its chance to prove the patent is invalid on appeal. Joe Salazar’s U.S. Patent No. 5,802,467 is titled, “Wireless and Wired Communications, Command, Control and Sensing System for Sound And/or Data Transmission and Reception.” After unsuccessfully suing HTC Corp. for infringement in 2016, Salazar sued HTC’s customers, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, in 2019, alleging certain phones sold by the companies infringed his patent. A jury ultimately found that the companies did not infringe but that the patent was not invalid as anticipated.

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed in part a district court ruling that found video game company Valve willfully infringed Ironburg’s U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525. However, the CAFC judges ruled that the district court erred when it estopped Valve from raising several grounds that were not the subject of its partially-instituted inter partes review (IPR) petition against Ironburg. Judge Clevenger dissented. A jury levied Valve with $4 million in damages, a sum that Ironburg argued should be enhanced. The district court did not grant enhanced damages, found that the two challenged claim terms were not indefinite, said the claims were willfully infringed, held that Valve was estopped from litigating the prior art grounds on which IPR was requested but not instituted, and also held that Valve was estopped from litigating later-discovered invalidity grounds. The CAFC affirmed all but the latter holding, explaining that the later-discovered prior art that was not part of the IPR petition must be held to a “skilled searcher” standard that it is the burden of the patent holder to prove is subject to IPR estoppel.

On March 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Philip Morris Products S.A. v. International Trade Commission affirming a Section 337 ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that blocked the importation and sale of electronic vape tobacco products infringing patents owned by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company. While much of the precedential decision deals with Philip Morris’ procedural and agency challenges to the ITC’s ruling, the Federal Circuit also rejected arguments that several patentability findings entered by the ITC were not supported by substantial evidence. The present appeal stems back to an ITC complaint filed by R.J. Reynolds in April 2020 seeking a Section 337 investigation into Philip Morris’ IQOS line of heat-not-burn tobacco vaping products. The two patents asserted by R.J. Reynolds are U.S. Patent No. 9901123, Tobacco-Containing Smoking Article, and U.S. Patent No. 9930915, Smoking Articles and Use Thereof for Yielding Inhalation Materials. After a yearlong investigation, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the accused IQOS products infringed claims of both patents, that R.J. Reynolds established the existence of a domestic industry with respect to both patents, and that the public interest did not weigh against entry of a limited exclusion order (LEO).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday issued a precedential decision holding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) correctly found Roku, Inc. had failed to prove the challenged claims of Universal Electronics, Inc.’s patent obvious. Judge Stoll authored the majority opinion and Judge Newman dissented, citing both procedural and substantive problems with the majority’s analysis. The decision relates to Universal Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853, which generally is directed to universal remote controls. Specifically, the patent describes “a universal control engine (UCE) that facilitates communication between a controlling device (i.e., a remote) and intended target appliances.”