Posts Tagged: "hot news"

In Van Buren v. United States, argued December 1, the Supreme Court has a chance to address how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act applies when a defendant is authorized to access and obtain information from a computer but subsequently uses this information for a purpose that is not permitted. The outcome of this case is important to every company that has computer data and will provide guidance on how best to protect that data.

On November 25, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., in which the PTAB held VidStream’s patent claims unpatentable as obvious over the applied prior art. In particular, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s holding that Twitter properly established an earlier filing date of a reference based on evidence submitted in a reply brief.

This week in Washington IP news, Senate committees will convene a series of business meetings, including one by the Senate Judiciary Committee to look at a proposed bill that would create an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) pathway for resolving copyright small claims. The Senate Environment Committee will also discuss a proposed legislative draft designed to restore American dominance in nuclear energy in part by supporting the licensing of advanced nuclear energy technologies. Elsewhere, the Brookings Institution will host a pair of events exploring the impacts of smart machines on the American labor force as well as the future of antitrust policy in the tech sector during the Biden Administration.

Judge Alan Albright’s Western District of Texas courtroom in Waco, Texas is the preferred venue for patent cases and the new patent rocket docket. Prior to Judge Albright taking the bench, patent cases filed in Waco were scarce, but since Albright taking the bench, patent cases have exploded. Through November 23, 2020, 3,863  patent cases have been filed nationwide. Of that number, nearly 791  have been filed in Judge Albright’s court.

On November 19, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Vectura Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC in which the court affirmed a judgment entered against GSK finding that Ellipta-brand inhalers infringed patent claims asserted by Vectura. On appeal, GSK had argued that it was entitled to new trials on infringement and damages, but the Federal Circuit disagreed.

On November 20, the Federal Circuit issued a modified opinion following a petition for panel rehearing filed by Network-1. The petition came after the CAFC affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a district court’s claim construction and remanded the case to the district court on September 24, 2020, in Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company. In the revised opinion, the CAFC said that it would not consider Network-1’s alternative grounds for granting a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on validity nor its new trial motion in the first instance.

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court finding that an inventor of water park surfing attractions breached his employment agreement and that his co-inventor was improperly listed as an inventor. The CAFC based the decision on its best prediction of how the California Supreme Court would interpret state law as applied to the case, applying the “employment contracts in a manner highly protective of former employees”.

On November 17 the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination of the PTAB that claims were obvious in view of the prior art in an appeal that was returned to the CAFC on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, the CAFC concluded that, according to the recent Supreme Court decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, “§ 324(e) prohibits judicial review of SIPCO’s challenge because it is nothing more than a contention that the agency should have refused to institute [covered business method] CBM review.”

On November 16, the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari in two cases from the Federal Circuit: IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and WhitServe LLC v. Donuts Inc. IYM asked the Supreme Court to grant review “to determine whether the Arthrex decision applies to all appeals that were pending when [the Arthrex decision] issued.” In the WhitServe petition, WhitServe asserted that a determination of patent ineligibility “necessitates impermissible fact-weighing at the pleading stage and eviscerates the statutory presumption of validity.”

The USPTO recently published a Final Rule setting new fees for trademark filings and TTAB proceedings, which will be effective January 2, 2021. The last time trademark fees were adjusted was about three years ago. The increases range from modest to fairly substantial. To file an application using the TEAS Plus option, the fee has increased from $225 per class to $250 per class, and the processing fee for failing to meet the TEAS Plus requirements has been reduced from $125 per class to $100 per class. However, the fee for TEAS Standard per class has jumped $75, from $275 to $350, which many trademark owners who commented found unreasonable.

On November 13, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Board in In re: Google Technology Holdings LLC. In particular, the CAFC upheld a decision of the Board affirming a patent examiner’s final rejection and holding that Google forfeited the arguments put forth on appeal. Google’s U.S. Patent Application No. 15/179,765 was directed to “distributed caching for video-on-demand systems, and in particular to a method and apparatus for transferring content within such video- on-demand systems.” During prosecution, the examiner finally rejected the claims of the ‘795 application as being obvious under Section 103.

On November 10, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and vacated-in-part a decision of the District of Delaware in C R Bard Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc. In particular, the CAFC held that there was substantial evidence in the record to support a jury finding of infringement and willfulness and that the asserted claims were not directed solely to printed matter and were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.

On November 9, the Federal Circuit granted Apple’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to transfer Uniloc’s patent infringement suit against Apple to the Northern District of California. Judge Moore dissented, asserting that the majority applied an incorrect standard of review.