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
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
November 14, 2019
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 […]
admin
October 14, 2019
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 […]
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
August 19, 2019
Westech Aerosol Corporation v. 3M Company, et al.
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.
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.
