admin
May 14, 2020
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 “ suffered an injury in fact, that is fairly […]
admin
April 14, 2020
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. § […]
admin
March 14, 2020
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 […]
admin
February 14, 2020
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 […]
admin
January 14, 2020
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 […]
admin
December 14, 2019
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 […]
admin
September 19, 2019
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.
admin
August 19, 2019
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 […]
admin
July 19, 2019
TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC
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.
admin
July 19, 2019
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC
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. 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.
