The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s award of sanctions for bad faith against a plaintiff’s conduct based on the meritless nature of several lawsuits filed in incorrect venues.
Continue Reading The Federal Circuit Affirms Deterrence Sanctions
This case examines the application of trademark functionality doctrine in the medical device industry, specifically addressing whether the pink color of ceramic hip components can be protected as a trademark. The case provides important guidance on how courts evaluate functionality claims and the intersection between patent and trademark protection for product features.
Continue Reading Ceramtec GMBH v. Coorstek Biocermanics LLC
In Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2024), the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court of Delaware’s invalidity determination of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,741,356 (“the ’356 patent”) for obviousness-type double patenting. The Federal Circuit also reversed the district court’s invalidity determination of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,007,179 (“the ’179 patent”), 11,090,291 (“the ’291 patent”), 11,160,792 (“the ’792 patent”), and 11,311,516 (“the ’516 patent”) for lack of written description.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Emphasizes Role of Filing Dates, Reversing Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Invalidation
Miller Mendel Inc. filed a lawsuit against the City of Anna, Texas (“the City”), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Claims 1, 5, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188 (the “’188 patent”). The ’188 patent primarily pertains to a software system designed to manage pre-employment background investigation processes. Specifically, Claim 1 exemplifies a computerized method that involves: (1) receiving data related to an applicant; (2) storing new applicant information; (3) transmitting an applicant hyperlink; (4) receiving an electronic response from the applicant; (5) determining a reference class; (6) selecting a reference
Continue Reading Another Example of Ineligible Software Patent Claims
This case addresses the application of issue preclusion in relation to the validity of three patents. In particular, this case focuses on the implications of decisions made during the dismissal of pending litigations and examines whether these decisions render judgments final, justifying the application of issue preclusion to invalidate concurrently asserted patents.
Continue Reading Koss Corporation v. Bose Corporation
Inline Plastics Corp. (“Inline”) filed a lawsuit against Lacerta Group, LLC (“Lacerta”), alleging infringement of several patents related to tamper-resistant containers and methods of making such containers using thermoformed plastic. The district court granted Inline summary judgment of infringement on a subset of claims, but the jury found that the remaining asserted claims were not infringed and that all the asserted claims (including those already held infringed) were invalid. The parties then filed posttrial motions, including Inline’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and Lacerta’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, both of which were
Continue Reading Inline for a New Trial
In Copan Italia S.p.A. et al. v. Puritan Medical Products Company LLC et al., the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction to handle an appeal based on arguments under the Pandemic Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (“PREP”) Act.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Lacked Jurisdiction to Address Appeal Based on Arguments Under The PREP Act
In the rapidly changing world of innovation and intellectual property protection, understanding the landscape of existing patents is not merely beneficial – it’s a necessity. Patent searches stand as a fundamental step in the intellectual property lifecycle, providing a critical tool for inventors, companies, and legal professionals. This article delves into the significance of conducting thorough patent searches, considerations for timing these searches, and the methodologies employed. We also will explore the benefits and drawbacks of conducting searches internally at law firms versus outsourcing to specialized search firms, aiming to spark a discussion on the strategic use of patent searches.
Continue Reading Clearing the Path Forward: The Critical Role of Patent Searches
Following the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd., the United States may become a destination venue for resolution of global trade secret disputes. The Seventh Circuit held that U.S. trade secret law applies extraterritorially—reaching the theft of trade secrets outside the United States—so long as “an act in furtherance” of the offense was committed in the United States. The court held, for example, that marketing products in the United States qualified as an “act in furtherance” if the products were made using stolen trade secrets. Once an “act in furtherance” is identified, damages
Continue Reading Companies Should Take Notice of the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Trade Secret Law
The sufficiency of evidence required to support a denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial for infringement, willful infringement, and damages.
Continue Reading Slicing Through Insufficient Evidence of Infringement, Willfulness, and Damages
Introduced in response to certain digital media sellers (e.g., game publishers) revoking consumer access to purchases with little to no recourse, AB 2426 forces sellers of “digital goods,” such as movies, apps, games, books and music to clarify what a consumer is actually receiving in connection with their “purchase.” Often companies refer to the “purchase” or “sale” of digital goods, yet the associated terms of service make clear that the buyer only receives a revocable license to the such goods. In some cases, if a buyer violates the terms of service, the license is revoked and the user is denied
Continue Reading New California Law Targets Sellers of Digital Goods
Legal regimes are shifting, including in the intellectual property world as businesses increasingly seek the protection of trade secrets rather than patents to secure their confidential information. When the Defend Trade Secrets Act was passed in 2016, trade secret litigation skyrocketed, increasing more than 25 percent in a single year. While the number of trade secret cases filed in federal court fell briefly during COVID, that number is back on the rise, with over 1,200 cases filed last year. Meanwhile, patent litigation is experiencing the opposite trend: the number of patent cases filed in 2023 fell to their lowest levels since 2010. These
Continue Reading The Rise of Trade Secret Litigation
This case addresses[1] the application of issue preclusion in scenarios where two closely related cases allege patent infringement against different versions of the same technology. Specifically, this case discusses whether a party’s waiver of a doctrine-of-equivalents theory in an initial lawsuit extends to a subsequent case involving a newer iteration of the technology previously litigated.
Continue Reading Precluded, Not Repeated: WARF & Apple Continue to Shape our Understanding of Issue Preclusion in Patent Law
After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision’s position on each of the appealed issues.[1]
Continue Reading Different Evidentiary Burdens in IPR Proceedings and District Court Means No Collateral Estoppel Effect on Related Patent Claims
Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. (collectively, “Celanese”) filed a petition before the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), alleging that Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., Jinhe USA LLC (collectively “Jinhe”) and other entities violated 19 U.S.C. § 337.[1] Celanese alleged that Jinhe and other entities were importing Ace-K (an artificial sweetener) made using a process that infringed Celanese’s patents. Each of the patents asserted by Celanese had an effective filing date of September 21, 2016, and as a result are governed by the America Invents Act (“AIA”).
Continue Reading Celanese v. ITC: How the On-Sale Bar Can Turn Sweet Sales into Spoiled Patents
On August 28, the CFPB issued a Consumer Advisory warning that it believes video game companies are targeting children for monetary gain. With 45.7 million U.S. children engaged in video gameplay, the agency is concerned about the financial risks that games and virtual worlds pose, especially to young consumers. This Advisory highlights a growing focus on the game industry’s practices, which allegedly mimic traditional banking systems but lack corresponding consumer protections.
Continue Reading Regulators Ramp up Scrutiny of Games’ Business Models