incomplete patent drawings for Droplets case

Droplets v E*TRADE Bank

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

Droplets, Inc., v. E*TRADE Bank

Nos. 2016-2504,-2602 Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2018 Opinion by Judge O’Malley with Circuit Judges Dyk and Wallach.

This appeal arises from a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,402,115 (“the Patent”), owned by Droplets, Inc. (“Droplets”), are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The issue on appeal is the sufficiency of a priority claim incorporated by reference to avoid invalidating prior art. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed the Board’s finding of invalidity. (more…)

Continue Reading
legal gavel with pharmaceuticals

Merck Sharp Dohme v Amneal Pharmaceuticals

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

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC

No. 2017-1560 Fed. Cir. Feb. 9 2018 Opinion by Circuit Judge Stoll with Circuit Judges Taranto and Clevenger.

Merck filed an infringement suit alleging that, if approved by the FDA, Amneal’s proposed Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) product would infringe U.S.Patent No. 6,127,353. Following a bench trial, the district court found that Merck failed to prove by preponderant evidence that Amneal’s ANDA product would infringe the patent. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed the district court. (more…)

Continue Reading
patent circuit board

AVC v HTC BLACKBERRY MOTOROLA

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

ADVANCED VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, v. HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., BLACKBERRY LTD, BLACKBERRY CORPORATION, MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Defendants-Appellees

Federal Circuit law requires that all owners of a patent must be parties to an infringement action. In this case, the Court determined that Ms. Hsuin was a co-inventor of US Patent No. 5,781,788 and that the terms of an employment agreement were ineffective to transfer her interests to the Appellant. The Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case due to plaintiff’s lack of standing. (more…)

Continue Reading
patent art for travel locks in travel sentry v tropp patent infringement case

Travel Sentry v David Tropp

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

TRAVEL SENTRY, INC.,  Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. DAVID A. TROPP, Defendant-Appellant

2016-2386, 2016-2387, 2016-2714, 2017-1025  Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Nos. 1:06-cv-06415-ENV- RLM, 1:08-cv-04446-ENV-RLM, Judge Eric N. Vitaliano.

For the third time, the Court presided over this dispute regarding whether Travel Sentry, Inc. (“Travel Sentry”) and its licensees infringed one or more claims of two patents issued to appellant David A. Tropp (“Tropp”).  In this iteration, the Court reversed the district court’s entry of summary judgment that Travel Sentry and its licensees did not directly infringe any of the method claims recited in the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

This case closely tracked the developments of, and presented similar issues to, another well-traveled case, Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., which the Court discussed at length in this opinion.  Akamai examined the respective scopes of divided and induced infringement. (more…)

Continue Reading
Partial patent art for US Patent 6,816,356

Presidio v American Technical Ceramics

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

PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC. v. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP.

2016-2607, 2016-2650

Presidio filed suit against American Technical Ceramics Corp. (“ATC”) for patent infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holdings that the claims of the patent are not indefinite and that ATC is entitled to absolute intervening rights because a substantive amendment was made during reexamination. The Federal Circuit reversed the award of lost profits and remanded for determination of a reasonable royalty, while concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award enhanced damages. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s issuance of permanent injunction. (more…)

Continue Reading
businessman selecting patent on clear touch screen

Organik Kimya v Rohm and Haas

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

Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm And Haas Co. Nos. 2015-1983, -2001 Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2017

Opinion by Circuit Judge Newman with Chief Judge Prost and Circuit Judge Taranto

Organik appeals the decisions of the PTAB in two IPR proceedings. The PTAB sustained the patentability of claims U.S Patent No. 6,020,435 (“the ’435 Patent”) and claims of its division, U.S. Patent No. 6,252,004 (“the ’004 Patent”). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed in an opinion written by Judge Newman.

The ’435 Patent and the ’004 Patent are directed to processes for preparing emulsion polymers having improved opacity. Improved opacity is the result of voids (hollows) produced within the polymer particles. A base swelling agent and excess monomer are introduced into an aqueous emulsion of the polymer, with no substantial polymerization. The base permeates the outer shell of the polymer particle and neutralizes the acid core. The resulting hydrophilic salt in the core promotes diffusion of water, swelling the polymer particle. Evaporation of the water leaves an enlarged hollow core. Suitable swelling agents include fixed or permanent bases such as potassium hydroxide.  Proceedings were instituted on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. (more…)

Continue Reading
Waymo, Uber and Otto logos

Waymo v Uber, Ottomotto

Posted by admin In Intellectual property litigation, Trade secrets case summary 0 comment

Waymo LLC, v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC, Otto Trucking LLC

Nos. 2017-2235, -2253 Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2017 Opinion by Circuit Judge Wallach with Circuit Judges Newman and Stoll

Appellant Anthony Levandowski intervened seeking to prevent discovery sought by Appellee Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) in its lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”). Waymo alleged that Mr. Levandowski, its former employee, improperly downloaded documents and then left Waymo to create Ottomotto, which Uber subsequently acquired. Before the acquisition closed, counsel for Ottomotto and Uber (but not counsel for Mr. Levandowski) jointly retained a firm to investigate Ottomotto employees that were previously employed by Waymo, including Mr. Levandowski. That report (“the Stroz Report”) was the subject of the discovery dispute before the court on appeal. (more…)

Continue Reading
businessman selecting patent on clear touch screen

Honeywell v Mexichem, Daikin

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

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Appellant v. MEXICHEM AMANCO HOLDING S.A. DE C.V., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD., Appellees

2016-1996 Decided: August 1, 2017 Opinion by Circuit Judge Lourie with Circuit Judge Reyna Opinion dissenting-in-part by Circuit Judge Wallach

Honeywell appealed from a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the Examiner’s rejection, in two merged inter partes reexaminations, of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Federal Circuit vacated the decision and remanded the case to the Board.

The Examiner found that the primary reference expressly discloses HFO-1234yf (a hydrofluoroolefin refrigerant) required by the claims and that each of the secondary references teaches the use of PAG (polyalkylene glycol) lubricants with HFC (hydrofluorocarbon) refrigerants. Honeywell argued to the Board that the primary reference does not teach the use of HFO-1234yf with any particular lubricant, much less a PAG lubricant, and that such a combination would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Honeywell submitted evidence of secondary considerations, including: unexpected stability of HFO-1234yf in combination with PAG lubricants; long-felt but unmet need for compositions having certain environmentally-favorable characteristics; and skepticism that such an environmentally-friendly composition existed. (more…)

Continue Reading
dollar sign and legal gavel

Adjustacam v Newegg

Posted by admin In Intellectual property litigation, Patent Case Summary 0 comment

ADJUSTACAM, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NEWEGG, INC., NEWEGG.COM, INC., ROSEWILL, INC., Defendants-Appellants

2016-1882 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 6:10-cv-00329-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. Decided: July 5, 2017

The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of attorney’s fees by the Eastern District of Texas. AdjustaCam sued Newegg and dozens of other defendants for patent infringement. Just before summary judgment briefing, AdjustaCam voluntarily dismissed its infringement claims against Newegg with prejudice, Newegg’s right to seek fees after dismissal. The district court denied Newegg’s request for attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court in light of intervening Supreme Court precedent, Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014). The district court, this time with a different judge presiding, again denied Newegg’s motion for attorneys’ fees. (more…)

Continue Reading
trademark word cloud

Sheila Lyons v AVMA

Posted by admin In Intellectual property litigation, Trademark Appeal, Trademark law 0 comment

SHEILA LYONS, DVM,  Appellant v. THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SPORTS MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION,  Appellee

2016-2055 Decided: June 8, 2017

This is an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of Appellant Lyon’s registration of the service mark THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SPORTS MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION (“the mark”) on the Supplemental Register on the ground that she does not own the mark.  The Court affirmed the cancellation.

Lyons is an equine veterinarian, who was part of a committee seeking accreditation by Appellee (“AVMA”) of a veterinary specialist organization (“VSO”) for treating athletic animals.  Lyons was later dismissed from the committee. Following Appellant’s departure, both she and AVMA claimed ownership of the mark. (more…)

Continue Reading