News
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EUIPO introduces IP Legislative and Practice Repository |
|
| |
|
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) recently launched the IP Legislative and Practice Repository project, which was first introduced in 2020, aiming to centralise European and national trademarks and designs practice, legal provisions, case law and eLearning resources.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
European Union |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia launches new patent search website |
|
| |
|
The Intellectual Property Office of Australia has recently announced the launch of its new Patent Search website, offering an improved search experience for users.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Australia |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada corrects inadequate maintenance fees |
|
| |
|
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has rectified errors in fee amounts for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th anniversary small entity maintenance fees for patents and applications due between 2021 and 2024, which were erroneously published as $50 without accounting for inflationary adjustments made by the Service Fees Act.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Canada |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada implements revised patent rules |
|
| |
|
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has implemented amendments to the Patent Rules, which provides for safeguarding applicants and patentees from insufficient fee payments resulting from erroneous information provided by the Commissioner.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Canada |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO introduces data storage measures |
|
| |
|
The Administrative Council approved measures to transition the European Patent Office (EPO) to a more sustainable data storage model, aligning with proposals recommended by the SACEPO Working Party on Rules.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO announces enhanced MyEPO services |
|
| |
|
Starting 1 April 2024 the European Patent Office (EPO) introduced several new features in MyEPO Portfolio, enhancing user experience and efficiency in the patent granting process, alongside implementing fee policy revisions decided by the Administrative Council in December 2023.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Japan, Morocco extend PPH pilot |
|
| |
|
On 1 April 2024 the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the Moroccan Industrial and Commercial Property Office (OMPIC) renewed the extension of their Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot programme for an indefinite period.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Japan, Morocco |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USPTO expands electronic signing options for patents |
|
| |
|
Aiming to improve customer service, reduce barriers to practice and align patent procedures with those of global intellectual property offices, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on 22 March 2024 published the final rule in the Federal Register announcing the broadening of the types of electronic signatures accepted for patent correspondence.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual fees under Madrid Protocol revised for Bahrain |
|
| |
|
Pursuant to the provisions of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol Concerning the International Registration of Marks, the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization on 28 March 2024 notified the revised individual fees applicable when Bahrain is designated in an international application or in an application for renewal of an international registration or is a subject of subsequent designation.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Bahrain |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EUIPO releases CP13 Common Practice |
|
| |
|
On 22 March 2024 the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) published the CP13 Common Practice relating to “Trade mark applications made in bad faith” via the Common Communication.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
European Union |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarification on trademark protection in Jersey |
|
| |
|
In March 2024 the Government of Jersey issued a clarification regarding trademark protection in the region, addressing confusion surrounding the issue.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Jersey |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual fees under Madrid Protocol revised for Philippines |
|
| |
|
In accordance with the provisions of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol Concerning the International Registration of Marks, the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization on 28 March 2024 notified the revised individual fees, in Swiss francs, payable when the Philippines is designated in an international application or in an application for renewal of international registration or is a subject of subsequent designation.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Philippines |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USPTO publishes proposed trademark fee changes for 2025 |
|
| |
|
Aiming to enhance operational efficiency and support ongoing initiatives outlined in its 2022–2026 Strategic Plan, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently announced proposed amendments to the trademark fees for fiscal year 2025.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
Cases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Poppington, LLC v. Brooks, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 23-660-cv, 26 March 2024 |
|
| |
|
A district court appropriately found that his lawsuit was “frivolous and retaliatory.”
A federal district court in Manhattan acted within its discretion when it ordered an entrepreneur and music industry executive to pay attorney fees to a self-published book author and former movie collaborator, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held. The court’s summary nonprecedential opinion, in easily affirming the district court’s decision, emphasized the district court’s finding that the music industry executive failed to do appropriate due diligence before bringing his meritless suit and that the lawsuit was brought in retaliation for his former colleague’s victory over him in an earlier suit (Poppington, LLC v. Brooks , March 26, 2024, per curiam).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Matthew Hersh, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, No. 22-6086, 27 March 2024 |
|
| |
|
The streaming channel and a production company will face a rehearing on the fair use doctrine.
The companies behind a widely popular television series that aired at the height of the pandemic will have to face a rehearing on their claim that they made a fair use of a videographer’s footage as part of one episode, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held. The court, in reversing and remanding in part the judgment of a federal district court in Oklahoma, found that the trial court wrongly placed the burden of proof on the videographer when assessing the market impact of the admitted use (Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., March 27, 2024, Carson, J.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Matthew Hersh, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, No. 23-1591, 03 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
The testimony was properly excluded—and without it, the software company could not prevail on its copyright claims.
A Detroit federal court correctly found that a software designer moved too late to introduce expert testimony supporting the copyrightability of its source code, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held. The court, in affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment to two companies accused of purloining the software designer’s product, also agreed with the district court that without that expert testimony, the company could not show which lines of its code resulted from expressive, as opposed to purely functional, considerations (RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC, April 3, 2024, Mathis, A.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Matthew Hersh, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO: Google LLC, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T 0955/20, 02 February 2022 |
|
| |
|
The board found it equitable to reimburse the appeal fee of a second appeal when an applicant had been forced to pay appeal fees for both the second appeal and a preceding first appeal for which the examining division had used interlocutory revision merely to refine the refusal. The board found itself incompetent in the second appeal to deal with the request for reimbursement of the first appeal fee. The board cited the need to pay two appeal fees for essentially the same decision as an exceptional circumstance, justifying admission of a new request and remittal to enable the reimbursement.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Lars De Haas, Reporter EPO Mechanical Engineering |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Netherlands |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO: Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T 0727/19, 01 April 2022 |
|
| |
|
The board held that it was a substantial procedural violation that a decision lacked reasons for not allowing an objection for partiality. This violation meant that the suspicion of partiality had to be seen as justified, even though the facts otherwise did not prove it. After remittal, the principle that nobody should decide a case in respect of which a party may have good reasons to assume partiality not so much contradicted, but rather precluded the application of the principle of the prohibition of "reformatio in peius" from the present maintance of the patent in amended form.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Lars De Haas, Reporter EPO Mechanical Engineering |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Netherlands |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Germany: Hebevorrichtung, Federal Court of Justice of Germany, X ZR 60/21, 18 July 2023 |
|
| |
|
Defending a patent in an amended version presented for the first time in the appeal proceedings is generally admissible if the new request differs from a request already filed in the department of first instance only in that individual features added to the granted version have been deleted. The decisive factor in this respect is that such a request can generally be assessed on the basis of the facts on which the decision was already based in the department of first instance, and which must therefore also be the basis of the appeal decision. The extent to which knowledge from a different or more generic technical field is to be taken into account is determined according to the circumstances of the individual case. The decisive factor is whether the skilled person can be expected to look for a solution to a problem in a different technical field.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Dr. Narayan Sircar, Hoffmann Eitle |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Germany |
|
| |
|
Germany |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Inline Plastics Corp. v. Lacerta Group, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2022-1954 & 2022-2295, 27 March 2024 |
|
| |
|
An error in the jury instructions on the objective indicia of nonobviousness requires a new trial on invalidity.
Concluding that the federal district court in Massachusetts failed to give the correct jury instructions in a patent infringement case involving tamper-evident plastic containers that led to a jury finding of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has remanded for a new trial. The Federal Circuit found that during the trial patent owner Inline Plastics Corp. presented evidence of industry praise for its tamper-evident plastic containers, copying, and licensing, and that this evidence warranted a jury instruction regarding the objective indicia of nonobviousness (Inline Plastics Corp. v. Lacerta Group, LLC , March 27, 2024, Taranto, R.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Brian Craig, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Rady v. The Boston Consulting Group, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 22-2218, 27 March 2024 |
|
| |
|
The patent only used existing technology to record data on a blockchain about unique physical objects, such as gemstones.
A patent claiming a method for recording and storing identifying information about physical items such as gemstones on a blockchain was invalid because the patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of collecting, processing, and storing data and used only pre-existing technology to implement the claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held in affirming a district court’s dismissal of infringement claims against The Boston Consulting Group, Inc., and De Beers UK, Ltd. (Rady v. The Boston Consulting Group, Inc., March 27, 2024, per curiam).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Virtek Vision International ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 22-1998 and 22-2022., 27 March 2024 |
|
| |
|
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board's obviousness determinations were not supported by substantial evidence because they were based on a showing that a skilled artisan would be aware of two prior art references but lacked any reason for the artisan to combine them.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erred in finding motivation to combine certain prior art references in finding certain claims of a laser projector alignment patent were obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The evidence only showed that the prior art references would be known to a skilled artisan, not that the artisan would have any reason to combine the references. The PTAB, however, correctly found that other challenged claims were not shown to be obvious (Virtek Vision International ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc., March 27, 2024, Moore, K.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Biomedical Device Consultants & Laboratories Of Colorado, LLC v. Vivitro Labs, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-2393, 28 March 2024 |
|
| |
|
A preliminary injunction was not appropriate because there were substantial questions about the validity of the asserted patent and therefore the “likelihood of success on the merits” element was not met.
A California district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a patent owner’s request for a preliminary injunction against a competitor in the heart valve testing device business, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The defendant had raised substantial questions about the validity of the asserted patent so the district court acted within its discretion in finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits at this stage in the proceeding (Biomedical Device Consultants & Laboratories Of Colorado, LLC v. Vivitro Labs, Inc., March 28, 2024, Lourie, A.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Brumfield v. IBG LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 22-1630, 27 March 2024 |
|
| |
|
The appellate court rejected the challenges to the district court’s rulings, including the exclusion of foreign damages and the denial of a new damages trial.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s decision, declaring that patents associated with graphical user interfaces for commodity trading, as well as methods for executing trade orders using these interfaces, were invalid. The case involved allegations of patent infringement pertaining to four patents owned by Trading Technologies International, Inc. (TT), which were asserted against IBG LLC and its subsidiary. The district court held certain patent claims invalid, and a jury found other patent claims infringed, leading to a final judgment. TT challenged the trial court’s finding of invalidity and its exclusion of foreign damages (Brumfield v. IBG LLC , March 27, 2024, Taranto, R.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): George Basharis, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 22-2215, 29 March 2024 |
|
| |
|
The district court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings because the asserted patents were invalid for being directed at an abstract idea.
A California district court did not err in finding that patent claims related to creating playlists based on user ratings of media were invalid for being directed at an abstract idea, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. Because the asserted patents merely recited the use of generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea of organizing data, the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant Pandora Media was affirmed (Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC, March 29, 2024, Stark, L.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 22-0427-cv, 18 March 2024 |
|
| |
|
The district court erroneously concluded that two versions of the same medication were interchangeable in the same market.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City reversed the dismissal of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., antitrust case against Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis Technology LLC, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (collectively Novartis) and Vetter Pharma International GmbH (Vetter) by finding that Regeneron pleaded the existence of a relevant antitrust market and that its tortious interference claim was timely. The dispute centered on prescription medications used to treat the overproduction of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a naturally occurring protein that, if overproduced, can lead to various eye disorders and possible permanent blindness. Both Regeneron and Novartis produce anti-VEGF medications to treat this condition. Regeneron produces EYLEA, while Novartis produces LUCENTIS. The case was remanded for further proceedings (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG , March 18, 2024, Parker, B.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Martin A. Steinberg, J.D., Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 22-1258, 01 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
Court vacates and remands to district court to properly assess whether claims in Janssen patent should be held invalid as obvious.
Citing several errors in the district court’s assessment of whether claims in a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s patent related to an injectable drug for treating schizophrenia are invalid as obvious, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., has vacated and remanded the district court’s nonobviousness determination after a bench trial in Janssen’s infringement suit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In particular, the appellate court found that the district court erred in adding unclaimed limitations when evaluating Teva’s obviousness arguments, and being improperly rigid in assessing prior art references without due consideration of how a skilled artisan’s background knowledge of the subject matter would affect the approach to, and motivation to modify, that prior art (Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., April 1, 2024, Prost, S.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Robert Margolis, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Alexsam, Inc. v. Cigna Corp., Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 22-1598 & 22-1599, 01 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
In two separate cases, a patentee failed to create a genuine question of material fact because the patentee’s experts did not actually examine the accused products but merely opined that it was not necessary for the products to have been modified, which would take them outside the scope of the claims.
Experts who do not examine the products about which they are opining cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact over whether the accused devices were “unmodified," for the purpose of summary judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. This principle had been established in a binding decision concerning the very same patent at issue in the present two cases (Alexsam, Inc. v. Cigna Corp.,Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P., April 1, 2024, Hughes, T.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: D3D Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-1462, 03 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
The Board did not depart from arguments presented in Microsoft’s IPR petition.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act in finding that claims of a patent describing methods for creating 3-D images from 2-D images generated by medical devices were obvious over two prior art references, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Patent owner D3D Technologies failed to show that the Board relied on arguments that were not presented in Microsoft’s petition for inter partes review (D3D Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., April 3, 2024, Schall, A.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Bhagat v. Vidal, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-1545, 03 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
A patent applicant for nutritional formulations did not show any error in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or district court proceedings.
An inventor who filed a patent application claiming certain nutritional formulations containing omega-6 fatty acids failed to show that the federal district court in Alexandria erred in affirming a PTAB rejecting the claims of her application on the ground of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The district court’s pretrial orders, as well as dismissal and summary judgment decisions, were affirmed because the court was within its rights to require the pro se inventor to follow local rules by filing paper motions and abiding by the scheduling order, and because sovereign immunity had not been waived as to the dismissed claims, and the inventor party failed to identify any disputed facts in opposing summary judgment (Bhagat v. Vidal, April 3, 2024, per curiam).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 22-2109, 04 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
District court correctly ruled that plaintiff’s asserted medical imaging patents were ineligible for protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a federal district court’s dismissal of AI Visualize, Inc.'s patent infringement complaint against Nuance Communications, Inc. and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. The appellate court concurred with the lower court that the patents in question were directed to abstract ideas of retrieving user-requested, remotely stored information and otherwise failed to meet the patent eligibility criteria under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., April 4, 2024, Reyna, J.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Saurabh Kashyap, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Vidal, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 22-2276, 05 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
The underlying Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) action is ordered to be dismissed as well.
An appeal of an administrative decision invalidating for obviousness a patent for a schizophrenia medication was moot because the patent in question had expired and the patent holder could not articulate anything more than conjecture that it would sue any third parties for pre-expiration infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. But the court, in vacating the patent holder’s appeal of the decision by the PTAB, also went a step further and vacated the underlying Board decision because that patent holder had presented “substantial” grounds to challenge the decision (Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Vidal, April 5, 2024, Taranto, R.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Matthew Hersh, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Sonos, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 22-1421, 08 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
Google’s originally accused products for Google Home infringed the patents, but Google’s proposed redesigns do not infringe.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission that Google LLC infringed patents owned by Sonos, Inc. by importing audio players and controllers for the Google Home smart speaker. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Commission’s decision that Google’s non-infringing alternatives and redesigns proposed by Google do not infringe any of the patent claims. The Federal Circuit held that the Commission properly construed the patent claims and that substantial evidence supports the Commission’s findings (Sonos, Inc. v. International Trade Commission , April 8, 2024, Stark, L.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Brian Craig, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 22-2153 and 22-1952, 11 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
Evidence at trial supported expectation of success in claimed rifaximin treatment protocol.
The federal district court in Delaware did not err in holding that asserted claims of patents directed to treating irritable bowel syndrome with a certain dosage of rifaximin would have been obvious over prior art references, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in tying the effective approval date of generic drug manufacturer Norwich Pharmaceutica’s ANDA to the date of expiration of the last to expire of Salix Pharmaceuticals patents Norwich had infringed or in denying Norwich’s motion to modify the final judgment after Norwich amended its ANDA to remove the infringing indication. Circuit Judge Cunningham dissented-in-part from the majority’s opinion affirming the district court’s obviousness ruling (Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., April 11, 2024, Lourie, A.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: GUI Global Products, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2022-2156, 2022-2157, 2022-2158, & 2022-2159, 11 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
The Board’s motivation to combine analysis was supported by substantial evidence.
The owner of four patens for magnetic switching technology was unable to show that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board committed any error in finding the challenged claims were invalid as obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The Board had thoroughly explained its reasoning and cited substantial evidence (GUI Global Products, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. , April 11, 2024, Prost, S.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Luv N' Care, Ltd. v. Laurain, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 22-1905 & 22-1970, 12 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
Inequitable conduct and obviousness findings related to a patent for a self-sealing dining mat for children were vacated and remanded because the district court applied the wrong legal standards.
Competing makers of children’s dining mats would have to return to trial to relitigate issues concerning whether the asserted patent was invalid for inequitable conduct and obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The district court had applied the wrong legal standard in finding no inequitable conduct and factual questions should have precluded partial summary judgment on obviousness. Remand on these issues also required reconsideration of the district court’s order denying attorney fees. However, the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff acted with unclean hands by failing to disclose certain patent applications until after discovery closed (Luv N' Care, Ltd. v. Laurain, April 12, 2024, Stark, L.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Nos. 22-16190 & 22-16281, 01 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
The panel’s decision came with a sharp dissent over allowing courts to “interfere” with PTO internal processes.
Federal district courts have the power to cancel not only trademark registrations but also applications for registration that are still pending before the Patent and Trademark Office, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held. But the opinion came with a sharp dissent that contended that the Lanham Act did not permit federal courts “to interfere with the PTO’s approval process” and to prematurely cancel pending applications. In a separate nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment rulings on likelihood of confusion, cybersquatting, and cancellation of a registered mark (BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture, Inc., April 1, 2024, Desai, R.).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Matthew Hersh, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Calabrese, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, No. 22-11717, 04 April 2024 |
|
| |
|
The company abandoned its 1990’s era push-to-talk network, but not the related marks.
A jury properly found that a major telecommunications provider did not abandon its trademark for a 1990s era brand of phones under the mark NEXTEL and the distinctive chirping sound that accompanied it, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held. The court, in rejecting an appeal by a company that traded on the mark to promote its “retro” phone product, also affirmed the jury’s award of statutory damages and found that a Miami district court acted within its discretion to enter a permanent injunction (Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Calabrese, April 4, 2024, per curiam).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Matthew Hersh, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 15 Apr 2024 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
