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
businessman selecting patent on clear touch screen

MTD Products v Andrei Ianchu

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

MTD Products Inc. v. Andrei Ianchu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Fed. Cir. August 12, 2019 Before Circuit Judges Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll

The Toro Company sought inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board held the challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Critical to its decision, the Board determined that the claim term “mechanical control assembly . . . configured to [perform certain functions]” is not a means-plus-function term subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. MTD Products Inc. appealed.

The patent specification did not expressly refer to a “mechanical control assembly,” though it did describe a “ZTR control assembly.” The Board concluded that since the specification disclosed a corresponding structure, the claim term “mechanical control assembly” has an established structural meaning, and therefore, the term is not a means-plus-function term. (more…)

Continue Reading
lettered dice stacked spelling the word patent

VirnetX v Apple

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

VirnetX Inc., v. Apple Inc.

Nos. 2017-1591, 2017-1592, 2017-1593 Fed. Cir. August 1, 2019 Before Chief Judge Prost, with Circuit Judges Moore and Reyna. Opinion by Chief Judge Prost.

VirnetX Inc. (“VirnetX”) appealed from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) related to three inter partes reexaminations maintained by Apple Inc. and Cisco Systems, Inc. The issues in the case were:

  1. whether Apple was barred from maintaining its reexams by the estoppel provision of the pre-America Invents Act version of 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) (2006); and
  2. whether certain claims were unpatentable as anticipated or obvious over the prior art of record.

(more…)

Continue Reading
US Court of Appeals and Districts map

Westech Aerosol v 3M

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

Westech Aerosol Corporation v. 3M Company, et al.

No.2018-1699 Fed. Cir. July 5, 2019 Before Circuit Judges Lourie, Mayer, and Reyna.

Westech appealed the decision of the district court for the Western District of Washington granting 3M’s motion to dismiss for improper venue. Considering the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland, 137 S.Ct. 1514 (2017), 3M moved to amend its motion to dismiss to include an argument that venue was improper because 3M did not have a regular and established place of business in the judicial district. (more…)

Continue Reading
wooden dice spelling obvious

TQ Delta v Dish Network

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

TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC

No. 2018-1799 Fed. Cir. July 10, 2019 Before Circuit Judges Newman, Linn, and Wallach.

TQ Delta appealed a Final Written Decision (FWD) of the PTAB finding, inter alia, that claims 6, 11, 16 and 20 of TQ Delta’s U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 (“the ‘404 patent”) were unpatentable as obvious. The ‘404 patent relates to the field of multicarrier transmission systems which provide high speed data links between communication points [and have recently been used] … for communications over the local subscriber loop that connects a telephone service subscriber to a central telephone office. The invention is described in the context of an ADSL system having a first transceiver located at the site of a customer’s premises as well as a second transceiver located at a local central telephone office. (more…)

Continue Reading
businessman cradling computer graphic of brain and computer circuits in his hands

Cisco Systems v TQ Delta

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

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC

No. 2018-1806; Arris Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC No. 2018-1917Fed. Cir. July 10, 2019Before Circuit Judges Newman, Linn, and Wallach.

This appeal is companion to appeal No. 2018-1799, wherein four claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 (“the ’404 patent”) were held to be obvious over the same combination of prior art analyzed in this appeal. (Please see the previous case summary). In this appeal, the appellants challenged the PTAB’s interpretation of the remaining claims of the ‘404 patent. The court agreed with the appellants and vacated the PTAB’s holding, remanding the case.

The appellants asserted that the PTAB did not apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “synchronization signal” in light of the specification of the ’404 patent. The court reviewed the PTAB’s assessment of the intrinsic evidence de novo. The court determined that claim 6 was representative and reviewed the term as used in the claim. The court then reviewed the surrounding claims and the remaining specification to interpret the claim term, as required by Philips. (more…)

Continue Reading
wooden dice spelling obvious

Bradium Technologies v Iancu

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

Bradium Technologies v Iancu

Nos. 2017-2579, 2017-2580 Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019 Before Circuit Judges Moore, Reyna and Chen.

Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) for inter partes review of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,343 and 8,924,506 (the “Patents”). The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that the claims were unpatentable as obvious. After Bradium Technologies LLC (“Bradium”) appealed, Bradium and Microsoft settled their dispute.

After institution of the IPR, Bradium proposed a construction for the term “limited bandwidth communications channel,” seeking to limit its meaning to “a wireless or narrowband communications channel.” The Board rejected Bradium’s proposed construction and adopted the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, which it concluded was “a communications channel whose bandwidth is limited.” (more…)

Continue Reading
new lit lightbulb separate from crowd of older bulbs

AVX Corp v Presidio Components

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

AVX Corp v. Presidio Components

No. 2018-1106 Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019 Before Circuit Judges Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto.

Presidio makes ceramic capacitors having a “buried metallization” in the dielectric layer. AVX petitioned the PTO for an inter partes review (IPR) of all claims of Presidio’s patent. The Board held some claims unpatentable and that AVX has failed to establish unpatentability of the other claims. AVX appealed as to the upheld claims. Presidio responded to AVX on the merits but also argued that although AVX had a statutory right to appeal, it lacked the standing required by Article III of the Constitution. AVX had standing to file the IPR petition because Article III requirements do not apply to administrative agencies. (more…)

Continue Reading