admin
June 22, 2019
Bradium Technologies v Iancu
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.
admin
June 21, 2019
AVX Corp v. Presidio Components
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.
admin
May 22, 2019
ATI Technologies ULC v. Iancu
ATI Technologies ULC (“ATI”) appeals three final decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) on petitions for inter partes review filed by LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”). The Board held all but one of the challenged claims unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. LGE withdrew from its appeal and cross-appeal, and the PTO Director intervened in support of the PTAB decisions.
admin
April 22, 2019
TEK Global, S.R.L., TEK Corporation v. Sealant Systems International, Inc., ITW Global Tire Repair No. 2017-2507 Fed. Cir. April 2, 2019 Before Chief Judge Prost, with Circuit Judges Dyk and Wallach. The patent in suit is directed to an emergency kit for repairing vehicle tires deflated by puncture. The Court held that Appellant should not […]
admin
March 22, 2019
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. No. 2018-1599 Fed. Cir. March 8, 2019 Before Circuit Judges Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Opinion by Circuit Judge Chen. The Court reversed the Board’s determination that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310 were […]
admin
February 22, 2019
Patent and Trademark Appeal Case Summary Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v. IPS Group, Inc. No. 2018-1205 Federal Circuit Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. IPS Group Inc. (“IPS”) appealed from two district court decisions granting summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patents 8,595,054 (“the ’054 patent”) and 7,854,310 (“the ’310 patent). Duncan Parking Technologies Inc. (“DPT”) […]
admin
January 22, 2019
In re: Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. No. 2017-2465 Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2018 Before Circuit Judges Chen, Mayer, and Bryson. Opinion by Circuit Judge Chen. Concurring opinion by Circuit Judge Mayer. This case came before the Court on appeal from the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) affirming the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § […]
admin
December 22, 2018
ACCELERATION BAY, LLC, Appellant v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC., ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., 2K SPORTS, INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC.,Cross-Appellants BUNGIE, INC., Appellee Nos. 2017-2084, 2017-2085, 2017-2095, 2017-2096, 2017- 2097, 2017-2098, 2017-2099, 2017-2117, 2017-2118 Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2018 Opinion by Circuit Judge Moore with Chief Judge Prost and Circuit Judge Reyna. Blizzard filed […]
admin
November 22, 2018
Natural Alternatives International v. Iancu No. 2017-1962 Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2018 Opinion by Chief Judge Prost with Circuit Judges Moore and Reyna. Natural Alternatives International, Inc. (“NAI”) filed a chain of eight U.S. patent applications, with each claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 back to the filing date of the first application. The […]
admin
August 26, 2018
ZUP, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc. No. 2017-1601 Fed. Cir. July 25, 2018 Opinion by Chief Judge Prost with Circuit Judge Lourie. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Newman. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed the decision of the district court invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,292,681 (“the ’681 patent”) […]
