Posts Tagged: "District of Massachusetts"

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts signed an order dismissing a patent infringement suit brought by Malvern, PA-based wireless medical technology company CardioNet against Lowell, MA-based patient monitoring tech developer InfoBionic. Judge Talwani dismissed the suit after CardioNet’s asserted patent, which covers systems and techniques for monitoring cardiac activity, was found to be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101… CardioNet filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in support of the eligibility of the ‘207 patent arguing that the Federal Circuit’s decisions in Aatrix Software v. Green Shades Software and Berkheimer v. HP changed Section 101 precedent impacting several aspects of the district court’s patent eligibility analysis. However, Judge Talwani denied CardioNet’s motion a few days after it was filed.

“In sum, Defendants showed that epitaxially growing a monocrystalline layer directly on an amorphous layer would have required undue experimentation—indeed, that it is impossible,” the Federal Circuit found. The appellate court also found that Boston University created its own enablement problem by seeking a construction for “a non-single crystalline buffer layer” which included a purely amorphous layer. Along with reversing the district court’s denial of JMOL, the Federal Circuit dismissed-as-moot Boston University’s cross-appeal of the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees and enhanced damages.

On June 1, 2018, the new patent local rules went into effect in the District of Massachusetts following a substantial overhaul that began over one year ago.  In January 2017, the judges in D. Mass. formed a committee which included ten local patent litigators to advise the court on revising its practices specific to patent litigation in the district.  The final draft of the proposed rules was released for public comment from December 2017 through February 2018, giving other patent litigators in the district and interested parties a first glimpse of the new rules and the ability to weigh in on their implications.  This week the court announced its final version of the rules, which will apply to all cases for which a scheduling order as yet to issue. 

Nike is also asserting one patent related to its Nike Air technology, a footwear sole structure designed to protect an athlete’s joints and muscles from impact forces. U.S. Patent No. 7401420, titled Article of Footwear Having a Fluid-Filled Bladder with a Reinforcing Structure. Issued in July 2008, it claims an article of footwear with a sole structure having a bladder enclosing a fluid that provides an outward force on a first surface and a reinforcing structure extending around a portion of the bladder. Nike alleges that Puma first began infringing on the ‘420 patent in November 2017 when it released Jamming footwear that incorporated a fluid-filled bladder for foot support.

This study uncovered several shocking revelations. First, 12.64% of PTAB judges were appointed with less than 5 years of experience prior to their appointment as APJs (i.e., 5 years or less removed from graduating from law school), while some PTAB judges were appointed with as little as 2 years of experience. Indeed, 7.47% of APJs had 4 or less years of experience when they were appointed to the PTAB… There were zero federal district court judges appointed with 10 years or less experience, while 46.55% of PTAB judges were appointed with 10 years or less experience… This would mean that 46.55% of PTAB judges were appointed while they were still at best senior associates. Worse, 4.60% of PTAB judges were appointed with 3 or fewer years of experience, which means those 4.60% of PTAB judges were appointed at a time when they were only at a junior associate level.

TiVo files patent lawsuits, the latest steps TiVo has taken in the hopes of resolving the renewal of a long-term licensing agreement that TiVo has already has already finalized with other major pay-television providers in the United States… TiVo’s recent litigation campaign against Comcast stems back to an unresolved licensing agreement that expired in April 2016 and which TiVo has attempted to renew with the major American pay-TV provider. Rovi first signed licensing agreements with the top pay-TV providers in the U.S., including Comcast, Dish Network, DirecTV and Time Warner, back in 2003 and 2004 with each deal lasting for a period of 12 years. In 2015 and 2016, around the same time that Rovi acquired TiVo for about $1.1 billion, the company began proactively engaging in licensing talks, again striking long-term deals like 10-year agreements with both AT&T and Dish. Of the top 10 pay-TV providers in the United States, Comcast is the last holdout who has not signed a licensing deal with TiVo.

On November 28 the parties requested an extension of the temporary stay, explaining: “The parties are still actively engaged in settlement discussions but require additional time to potentially resolve this matter.” A date of December 18, 2017, was jointly proposed for either the filing of a stipulated dismissal or joint status report. The District Court granted this extension on November 29, 2017… These requests for temporary stay follow a jury verdict issued in the case on August 3rd, which awarded reasonable royalties to both Philips and ZOLL for infringement of patents asserted by both parties in the case. That verdict awarded Philips a total of $10.4 million for infringement of three patents, while ZOLL was awarded a reasonable royalty of $3.3 million for two patents it asserted in the case.

Arguing against Micron’s motion to dismiss, Harvard contended that TC Heartland only affirmed a previous precedent set by SCOTUS and that the improper venue challenge was available to Micron back when it filed its first motion in August 2016… The Federal Circuit concluded that the TC Heartland decision “changed controlling law in the relevant sense” and thus the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the patent venue statute was not available to Micron at the time of its August 2016 motion to dismiss.concluded that the TC Heartland decision “changed controlling law in the relevant sense” and thus the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the patent venue statute was not available to Micron at the time of its August 2016 motion to dismiss.