Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 24: FRONTIER Act Introduced in House; Google Hit With €890 Million Fine for DMA Violations; and PTAB Revises SOP 1 on APJ Panel Assignments

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Second Circuit affirms a ruling that copyright infringement claims against artist Jeff Koons were time-barred; the Federal Circuit reverses-in-part a Section 101 ruling invalidating patent claims to systems for distributing picture mail; the EU Commission fines Google €890 million for self-preferencing and steering violations under the Digital Markets Act; and more.

CAFC Partially Reverses Ineligibility Ruling on Digital Picture Frame Patents, Reviving Suit Against Amazon

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today affirming in part and reversing in part a district court ruling that had found four patents covering digital picture frame technology ineligible under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. The court remanded one patent claim to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for further proceedings and affirmed the ineligibility finding as to the remaining three patents at issue.

Federal Circuit Says Expired Patent Warrants Vacatur of ITC Determination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday granted motions to dismiss as moot two appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) determination in which the ITC found Cartessa Aesthetics LLC violated Section 337 via infringement of Hydrafacial LLC’s patent, but suspended enforcement of an exclusion order because the patent was about to expire. The CAFC also vacated the underlying ITC determination.

Software Keeps Eating the World—But the Right to Repair Doesn’t Have to Go with It

When a farmer buys a tractor that costs a small fortune, who owns it? The instinctive answer is the farmer. And if he owns the tractor, certainly he has the right to fix it, right? Like most things in life, it’s not that simple. Modern equipment runs on software and other technologies that still belong, legally, to the company that built the machine. The manufacturer retains intellectual property rights in the equipment even after selling it, and those rights can get in the way of the farmer fixing his own machine. Both sides own something. Neither owns everything.

ECI Innovations, LLC is Seeking an Intellectual Property Partner

ECI Innovations, LLC, a company that designs and licenses financial products, is seeking an experienced intellectual property professional to join the company as a Partner on a part-time, permanent basis. This is a remote opportunity. The successful candidate will assist with filing patents for a proprietary financial benchmark product and provide legal guidance related to licensing the company’s intellectual property. Due to the confidential nature of the project, additional details will be shared with qualified candidates.

USPTO Proposes Rule to Require Statement of RPIs for All Ex Parte Reexam Requests

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published a Federal Register Notice proposing to amend the rules of practice to require that third-party requests for ex parte reexamination of a patent must include a statement identifying all real-parties-in-interest (RPIs) to the proceeding. According to the proposed rule, statements identifying RPIs would be kept confidential upon request and “would provide the Office with a mechanism to evaluate statutory estoppel provisions” as well as “enhance the Office’s ability to respond to false certifications, misrepresentations, and fraud.”

Reverse Engineering, ‘Readily Ascertainable’, and the Burden of Proof: Lessons from the Comet Technologies Decision

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Comet Technologies USA, Inc. v. XP Power, LLC, overturned Comet Technologies’ $40 million trade secret verdict against XP Power and ordered a new trial, finding that the district court erroneously instructed the jury that the defendant bore the burden of proving that Comet’s trade secrets were readily ascertainable by proper means. The court held that the error was not harmless because the instructions were not accurate as a whole, and nothing in the jury’s verdict shed light on how it would have ruled under a correct instruction. The case is notable both for clarifying what “readily ascertainable” means and for spotlighting a burden-of-proof distinction between the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) that practitioners should not overlook.

Subscribe to IPWatchdog

This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.

Get Email Updates