Valencell patent drawings

Fitbit v Valencell

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc.

No. 2019-1048 Fed. Cir. Before Circuit Judges Newman, Dyk, and Reyna.

Apple petitioned the Board for IPR of claims 1–13. The Board denied review of claims 3–5. Fitbit filed an IPR petition for claims 1, 2, and 6–13 and moved for joinder with Apple’s IPR, which the Board granted. After the PTAB trial, but before the Final Written Decision, the Supreme Court decided SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), holding that the America Invents Act requires that all challenged claims must be reviewed by the Board if the IPR petition is granted. The Board re-instituted the IPR to add claims 3–5 of the patent. The Final Written Decision held claims 1, 2, and 6–13 unpatentable, and held claims 3–5 not unpatentable. Following the decision, Apple withdrew from the proceeding. (more…)

Continue Reading
Esip patent art

Esip 2 v Puzhen Life

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

Esip Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC

No. 2019-1659 Fed. Cir. Before Circuit Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes.

The Court affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that certain claims of ESIP’s patent are invalid as obvious. The Court also rejected ESIP’s argument that the Board should not have instituted inter partes review because Puzhen failed to identify “all real parties in interest” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312, finding that the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review was non-appealable.

U.S. Patent No. 9,415,130 (“the ’130 patent”) relates to a “system and method for combining germicidal protection and aromatic diffusion in enclosed habitable spaces.” ESIP challenged four fact findings by the Board in determining that the claims at issue would have been obvious. The Court determined that all four fact findings were supported by substantial evidence. The Court found no error in the Board’s decision to credit the opinion of one expert over another and expressed that it does not reweigh evidence on appeal. (more…)

Continue Reading
patent litigation gavel with pharmaceuticals

Argentum Pharmaceuticals v Novartis

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

No. 2018-2273 Fed. Cir. Before Circuit Judges Lourie, Moore, and Reyna.

In this appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Court held that Argentum lacks Article III standing and dismissed the appeal.

Standing requires that the Argentum “

  1. suffered an injury in fact,
  2. that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and
  3. that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”

The burden of proof was on Argentum to demonstrate standing. Argentum was pursuing a generic version of Novartis’ Gilenya® product, along with its partner KVK-Tech, Inc. They were in the process of filing an ANDA, but had not yet filed it. The ANDA would be filed by KVK. The Court indicated that KVK, not Argentum, may be at risk of being sued. However, “even if the litigation were personal to Argentum, it would not confer standing because it is merely conjectural.” (more…)

Continue Reading
nike v adidas patent art

Nike v Adidas

Posted by admin In Design Patent Case Summary, Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG

No. 2019-1262 Fed. Cir. April 9, 2020 Before Circuit Judges Lourie, Chen, and Stoll.

Nike appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision on remand denying its request to enter substitute claims 47–50 of U.S. Patent No. 7,347,011 on the ground that those claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Nike further asserted that the Board violated the notice provisions of the APA by finding that a limitation of substitute claim 49 was well-known in the art based on a prior art reference that was in the record, but was never cited by Adidas for disclosing that limitation. The Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Nike failed to establish a long-felt need for substitute claims 47–50. The Court determined that the prior art revealed existing solutions to reducing waste during shoe production, which was the long felt need Nike argued that it had solved. (more…)

Continue Reading
patent pending stamped in metal

Arctic Cat v Bombardier

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., BRP U.S. Inc.

2019-1080 Fed. Cir. Before Circuit Judges Lourie, Moore, and Stoll.

The Court affirmed a judgment of the District Court that Arctic Cat is not entitled to recover pre-complaint damages from Bombardier due to the failure of Arctic Cat’s licensee to mark products in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §287. The issue presented was whether the cessation of sales of unmarked products excuses noncompliance with the notice requirement of §287, such that a patentee may recover damages for the period after sales of unmarked products ceased but before the filing of a suit for infringement. The Court held that it does not. A patentee who never makes or sells a patented article may recover damages, even without notice to an alleged infringer. If a patentee makes or sells a patented article and fails to mark it in accordance with §287, the patentee cannot collect damages until it provides notice or sues the alleged infringer. Damages accrue beginning with notification or suit. The patentee can provide notice by direct communication or by marking. A patentee’s licensees must also comply with §287. Arctic Cat had a license agreement expressly providing that its licensee Honda had no obligation to mark. While the date that Honda ceased making the patented products was in dispute, the Court found that that factual inquiry to be irrelevant to the analysis. Arctic Cat argued that, because §287 is written in the present tense, the statute only applies while a patentee is “making, offering for sale, or selling” its products. The Court responded (more…)

Continue Reading
wooden dice spelling obvious

Koninklijke Philips v Google, Microsoft PTAB

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile, Inc.

No. 2019-1177 Fed. Cir. Philips v Google Microsoft PTAB summary

The Court affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 finding that the claims were unpatentable as obvious.

The Board instituted inter partes review on the grounds of obviousness over a reference designated as SMIL 1.0 and obviousness over SMIL 1.0 in combination with a reference designated as Hua. The latter grounds was not advanced in Google’s petition.

The Court held that the Board erred by instituting inter partes review based on a combination of prior art references not advanced in Google’s petition, noting that the Supreme Court has explained that 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) does not “contemplate a petition that asks the Director to initiate whatever kind of inter partes review he might choose.” SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018). The Court went on to further quote the Supreme Court’s explanation of § 314(b) that the Director is given only the choice “whether” to institute an inter partes review. That language indicates a binary choice—either institute review or don’t. (more…)

Continue Reading
garage door with opener stock photo

Chamberlain v One World – Techtronic Industries

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. One World Technologies, Inc., DBA Techtronic Industries Power Equipment

No. 2018-2112 Before Circuit Judges Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Opinion by Circuit Judge Hughes.

The patent considered was directed to improved methods of human interaction with “barrier movement operators,” such as garage door operator systems. The claims on appeal were directed to an “interactive learn mode” that “guide[s] a user through installation and learn mode actions.” The Court affirmed the PTAB’s finding that the claims on appeal were anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Appellant argued that one of the claim steps should be construed to require identifying multiple activities. According to the Appellant, the prior art reference “clearly establishes that its controller identifies a single activity; it either sets the ‘up’ limit, or it sets the ‘down’ limit.” At the oral hearing, Appellant argued for the first time that the prior art reference failed to anticipate the claim’s final step — transmitting guidance “responsive to the first and second identifying steps.” Appellant further argued that the claim requires identifying multiple activities before transmitting any guidance “responsive to” the identification step. (more…)

Continue Reading
patent art for US patent 6418752

Airbus v Firepass Corporation

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation

No. 2019-1803 Fed. Cir. Before Circuit Judges Lourie, Moore, and Stoll.

Airbus S.A.S. appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reversal of the patent examiner’s rejection of certain new claims presented by patent owner Firepass Corporation in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,418,752. The issue on appeal was the Board’s finding that an asserted prior art reference (the “Reference”) fails to qualify as relevant prior art because it is not analogous to the claimed invention of the ’752 patent. The Court vacated the Board’s reversal of the rejection and remanded for consideration of the reference. The Court stated that two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art:

  1. whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and,
  2. if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.

(more…)

Continue Reading
chain with broken link

Honeywell v Arkema Certificate of Correction

Posted by admin In Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

Honeywell International Inc. v. Arkema Inc.

Nos. 2018-1151, 2018-1153 Fed. Cir. October 1, 2019 Before Circuit Judges Newman, Reyna, and Hughes.

During a post grant review proceeding, Honeywell sought authorization from the Board to file a motion for leave to petition the Patent and Trademark Office Director for a Certificate of Correction to correct a mistake in the chain of priority listed on the face of the patent. The Board rejected Honeywell’s request. The Court reversed, finding that the Board abused its discretion. The Court explained that a patent owner subject to a post-issuance review proceeding must follow three steps to file a petition for a Certificate of Correction:

  1. seek authorization from the Board to file a motion;
  2. if authorization is granted, file a motion with the Board, asking the Board to cede its exclusive jurisdiction so that the patentee can seek a Certificate of Correction from the Director; and
  3. if the motion is granted, petition the Director for a Certificate of Correction under 35 U.S.C. § 255.

(more…)

Continue Reading
patent drawings for gravity feed dispensers

Campbell Soup v Gamon Plus

Posted by admin In Design Patent Case Summary, Patent Case Summary, Patent Law 0 comment

Campbell Soup v Gamon Plus

Campbell Soup Company, Campbell Sales Company, Trinity Manufacturing, LLC v. Gamon Plus, Inc.
Nos. 2018-2029, 2018-2030 Fed. Cir. September 26, 2019  Before Chief Judge Prost, with Circuit Judges Newman and Moore.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Moore. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Newman.

Appellants appealed the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding Appellants did not demonstrate that the claimed designs of U.S. Patent Nos. D612,646 and D621,645 would have been obvious over U.S. Patent No. D405,622 (“Linz”) and G.B. Patent Application No. 2,303,624 (“Samways”). The court held that 1) substantial evidence did not support the Board’s finding that Linz is not a proper primary reference, and 2) substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Samways is not a proper primary reference. The court noted that “[t]his case presents the unusual situation where we reverse the Board’s factual finding.” (more…)

Continue Reading