Posts Tagged: "Federal Circuit"

SAS Institute is a software company in North Carolina. Founded in 1976, it employs thousands of people in the United States and thousands more around the world. World Programming, Ltd. (WPL) is a British company that decided to build a clone of SAS’s popular analytics software and, as several courts have found, broke the law to do it. After a decade of litigation across two continents and an unpaid multi-million-dollar judgment, the parties are once again in court. This time, however, WPL’s arguments pose grave dangers to all owners of other copyrighted works. WPL did not try to compete with SAS by building a different or better product. Instead, it ordered copies of SAS’s products under the guise of an educational license, but with the true intent to reverse-engineer and copy key elements, including the selection and arrangement of its outputs, and even the manuals licensed users receive from SAS. The result is that WPL produced a clone, taking the exact same input and producing the exact same output that SAS does. Avoiding the years of investment and fine-tuning that SAS undertook to create its market-leading software, WPL undercut SAS’s price in the market and lured away SAS’s customers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit yesterday reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that Campbell Soup Company, Campbell Sales Company, and Trinity Manufacturing, LLC did not demonstrate the claimed designs of Gamon, Inc.’s design patents would have been obvious over the prior art. The CAFC held that the designs were obvious because Gamon did not prove a nexus between commercial success and the claims, and because the evidence of Trinity’s copying did not overcome the strong evidence of obviousness provided by the prior art.

On August 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Hyatt v. Hirshfeld (Hyatt II), the latest in a line of court rulings regarding a series of much maligned patent applications filed by prolific inventor Gil Hyatt with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in the 1990s. While the Federal Circuit’s most recent decision, which denied the USPTO’s request to shift expert witness fees even while the appellate court vacated attorney’s fees awarded to Hyatt, could be seen as a mixed victory for Hyatt, it continues to shine a light on an unfortunate legal situation in which an independent inventor continues to be denied patent rights despite strong evidence that the USPTO dragged their feet on examining Hyatt’s patents.

On August 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) involving inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that affirmed the patentability of two of Ironburg Inventions Ltd.’s patents.

On August 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in In re: DISH Network L.L.C. in which the appellate court denied a petition for mandamus relief stemming from another appeal of a denial to transfer venue entered by U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas. Although the Federal Circuit avoided the entry of mandamus relief directing Judge Albright to grant Dish Network’s motion to transfer, the appellate court voiced its expectation that Judge Albright “will expeditiously reconsider this matter before resolving substantive issues” in the patent infringement suit filed by interactive TV and video-on-demand (VOD) provider Broadband iTV.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today issued two precedential decisions and one nonprecedential decision in cases involving Teva Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly, delivering wins and losses for each company. The cases relate to “humanized antagonist antibodies that target calcitonin gene-related peptide (‘CGRP’)” and methods of using such antibodies. All three cases were heard by Judges Lourie, Bryson and O’Malley, with Judge Lourie authoring the decisions.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), with Chief Judge Moore writing for the court, vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision, stating the PTAB erred in construing the claims of Magseis’ U.S. Patent No. RE45,268 (’268 patent). Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC. In 2017, Magseis FF LLC (predecessor of Fairfield Industries Inc.) sued Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. for patent infringement with respect to several of its patents, including the ‘268 patent, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On April 27, 2018, Seabed petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘268 patent on multiple grounds. On review, the PTAB found the asserted claims of Magseis’ ‘268 patent to be valid. PTAB concluded the prior art relied upon by Seabed -i.e. self-orienting gimbaled geophones – failed to prove the challenged claims were unpatentable. Seabed appealed the PTAB’s final written decision to the CAFC.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting judgment on the pleadings to Google, Facebook, EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc. that PersonalWeb Technologies’  patent claims were ineligible under Section 101. The decision was precedential and written by Judge Prost. The case has a long history and the CAFC has dealt with the patented technology before. The specific patents at issue here are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,802,310 (“the ’310 patent”), 6,415,280 (“the ’280 patent”), and 7,949,662 (“the ’662 patent”). The patents generally cover “data-processing systems that assign each data item a substantially unique name that depends on the item’s content—a content-based identifier.”

On August 2, New York City-based marketing company Bobcar Media filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to consider various legal issues related to the use of Rule 36 summary affirmances by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Bobcar contends that the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 practice, which allows the court to issue one-word affirmances of lower court decisions despite being fully briefed on the issues and holding oral arguments, “has gotten out of hand, contravening the principles set forth by the Founders of the Constitution, and basic tenets of justice.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday underscored its October 2020 ruling that generic company, Teva Pharmaceuticals, was liable for induced infringement of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) patent directed to a method of treating Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) using carvedilol. The court clarified, however, that its ruling should apply only narrowly to the facts of this particular case. Judge Prost again dissented.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), with Judge Hughes writing for the court, dismissed defendant-appellant LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc.’s (collectively, ‘LG’) request for interlocutory review due to lack of jurisdiction; the court said LG had failed to file within 30 days of the date at which the liability issues became final, resulting in an untimely appeal. In 2014, Mondis Technology, Ltd. (“Limited”) sued defendants for patent infringement over U.S. Patent No. 7,475,180(“the ‘180 patent”), which claims a “display unit configured to receive video signals from an external video source.” The district court granted Limited leave to join other plaintiffs, namely, Hitachi Maxell, LTD., NKA Maxell Holdings, LTD., Maxell, LTD., (collectively ‘Hitachi’) to address LG’s pretrial standing challenge. A jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey found LG infringed claims 14 and 15 of the ‘180 patent, the claims weren’t invalid, and the infringement was willful. The jury then awarded plaintiffs $45 million in damages. 

On August 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Eastern District of Texas’ partial grant of Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC, Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management Inc, and Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management’s (the Defendants) motion to dismiss Andra Group, LP’s (Andra’s) patent infringement suit for improper venue. In April 2019, Andra sued the Defendants for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,078,498 (‘498 patent), which claims inventions directed to presenting articles on a webpage. Andra’s infringement claims focus on the victoriassecret.com website, and other functional smartphone applications for using the “master display field,” which the ‘498 patent claims.

On August 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s denial of Apple’s motion to dismiss in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. The majority, with Judge Linn writing, determined that the University of Michigan’s (UM’s) bylaws did not effectuate a present automatic assignment of patent rights from one of its faculty members…. The CAFC concluded that paragraph 1 of Bylaw 3.10 does not unambiguously constitute either a present automatic assignment or a promise to assign in the future and is instead best read as a “statement of intended disposition and a promise of a potential future assignment . . .”

In The Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., Nos. 2020-1289, 2020-1290 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2021) (“Chemours v. Daikin”), the Federal Circuit clarified three doctrines involved in the determination of obviousness: teaching away, commercial success, and blocking patents. While all three panel judges agreed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) misapplied the commercial success and blocking patents doctrines, they disagreed as to the Board’s application of the teaching away doctrine. In contrast to the Board, the majority found evidence of teaching away in the prior art. But Judge Dyk, dissenting, found no such evidence and called the majority’s determination an impermissible expansion of the doctrine that now encompassed a reference’s mere preference for a particular alternative.

On July 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a non-precedential decision in Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. in which the appellate court affirmed a series of rulings on motions in a copyright and trade secret lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California. Although the Federal Circuit panel in the case “[understood] that Siegler feels unfairly treated as a result of the events she outlines, she was treated more than fairly by the district court,” said the CAFC, and the court did not err or abuse its discretion in reaching decisions to deny several motions for default judgment and reconsideration, as well as dismissing a pair of amended complaints filed by Siegler.