News
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EU-Mercosur trade agreement finalised to enhance IP protection |
|
| |
|
After over 20 years of negotiations, the European Union and the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) have finalised a partnership agreement establishing a comprehensive framework for intellectual property rights protection and trade cooperation.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Argentina, Brazil, European Union, Paraguay, Uruguay |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IP Australia launches IP Rights Overview tool |
|
| |
|
The Intellectual Property Office of Australia (IP Australia) has launched a new data tool called IP Rights Overview, a user-friendly tool that enables users to explore expeditiously the latest trends and developments in intellectual property (IP).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Australia |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hong Kong introduces new IP forms and e-filing system |
|
| |
|
On 28 January 2025, the Intellectual Property Department of Hong Kong (IPD) announced that new trademarks, patents and designs forms, along with updates to the e-filing system, will be introduced from 16 May 2025.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Hong Kong |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USPTO releases AI Strategy |
|
| |
|
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently announced the Artificial Intelligence Strategy, January 2025, to harness capabilities of artificial Intelligence (AI) towards the USPTO’s objective to maintain its global leadership in responsible and inclusive AI innovation.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UPC rules on late submission of physical evidence in patent dispute |
|
| |
|
The Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has recently ruled that Collomix GmbH could submit physical evidence after filing its claim against Lidl. Rejecting Lidl’s objections, the court held that the UPC Rules allow later evidence submission in certain cases.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Unified Patent Court News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
European Union |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enforcement partially suspended in Philips-Belkin patent dispute |
|
| |
|
Ruling on a request for suspensive effect in a patent dispute between Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) declined to suspend most of the first instance ruling but halted enforcement against Belkin’s managing directors due to legal errors.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Unified Patent Court News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
European Union |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UPC rules it has jurisdiction over UK part of European patents |
|
| |
|
On 28 January 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled that it has jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent if the defendant is based in a UPC member state. The decision came in an infringement case between Fujifilm and Kodak, despite the UK not being a contracting UPC member.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Unified Patent Court News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
European Union |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
India invites feedback on draft AYUSH patent guidelines |
|
| |
|
On 31 January 2025, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) invited feedback on “The draft guidelines for processing patent applications of AYUSH systems and related inventions.”
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
India |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published patent applications are prior art as of filing date, U.S. court rules |
|
| |
|
On 14 January 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., concluding that published patent applications can serve as prior art as of their filing date in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monaco aligns with CP14 practice standards |
|
| |
|
On 22 January 2025, the Industrial Property Office of the Business Development Agency of Monaco (MCIPO) adopted the Common Practice (CP14) developed by the European Union Intellectual Property Network (EUIPN) for assessing public policy and morality in trademark applications.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Monaco |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Madrid Protocol fees revised for Türkiye |
|
| |
|
Under the provisions of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol Concerning the International Registration of Marks, the World Intellectual Property Organization on 5 February 2025 notified revised individual fees applicable when Türkiye 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: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Turkey |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yemen updates its trademark application policy |
|
| |
|
On 22 January 2025, the Yemeni Trademark Office (TMO) in Sana'a implemented Ministerial Decision No. 53/2024, updating its trademark application policy.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Yemen |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual designation fee under Hague Agreement revised for Israel |
|
| |
|
In accordance with the provisions of the Common Regulations under the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, the World Intellectual Property Organization has revised the individual designation fees payable when Israel is designated in an international application or in an application for renewal of an international registration.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Israel |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia accedes to Hague System |
|
| |
|
On 7 January 2025, the Government of Saudi Arabia acceded to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs by depositing its instrument of accession with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter |
|
| |
|
Source: Manual IP News
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Saudi Arabia |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
Cases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Aquarian Foundation, Inc. v. Lowndes, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 22-35704., 03 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
Although the founder had granted unrestricted rights to a church member to distribute his teachings, he bequeathed the copyrights to the organization when he died, and the organization was permitted under state law to terminate the license at will.
A nonprofit religious organization will have a chance to show that a former member infringed copyrights owned by the organization when he uploaded teachings by the organization’s founder and spiritual leader after the termination of a license agreement. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the organization validly terminated the license in a 2001 letter, approximately two years after the founder’s death, meaning that any continued posting of the copyrighted materials to websites could constitute copyright infringement. A district court that dismissed the organization’s copyright claims improperly applied conditions contained in the Copyright Act’s rights-transfer termination provision, Section 203, 17 U.S.C. § 203, in determining that the license had not been effectively terminated. Section 203’s conditions, the appellate court explained, apply only to statutory heirs, whereas the organization had obtained its founder’s copyrights via will. The appellate court affirmed findings that the organization did not own the materials from the outset as works made for hire; that the founder retained copyrights in them as their author; and that the founder had validly granted a license in 1985 to the former member to use the works without restriction. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding possible liability for infringement after the termination of the license (Aquarian Foundation, Inc. v. Lowndes, No. 22-35704 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Thomas Long, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO: Ali Group S.r.l. - Carpigiani, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T 0211/21, 03 February 2023 |
|
| |
|
The present case deals with an invention in which automatisation is complemented by human intervention. The invention provided means enabling a skilled artisan to actively intervene in an automated process and provide a backup to pre-programmed procedures. This was refused by the examining division as being non technical, but the board did not agree. However, unfortunately, this did not help the applicant.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Bart van Wezenbeek, Hoffmann Eitle |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Netherlands |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO: Otis Elevator Company, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T1099/16, 11 December 2020 |
|
| |
|
The board held that to use a claimed new purpose to distinguish from the prior art as decided in G2/88, the extent to which a new technical effect underlying the new purpose must be "described in the patent" is that a skilled person can recognize what technical effect underlies the new claimed purpose (cf. Support in Article 84 EPC). Sufficiency of disclosure of the new technical effect (cf. Article 83 EPC), showing that the effect is plausible is not required for this, but should be contested as a separate ground of opposition.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Lars De Haas, Reporter EPO Mechanical Engineering |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Netherlands |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPO: B. Braun Avitum AG, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T 1756/16, 14 April 2021 |
|
| |
|
The board demonstrated different implications of a time limit set in a communication under Article 15(1) RPBA (preliminary opinion of the board). On one hand the opponent could not assume that it had been asked to file any response, let alone that a timely response would be admitted. On the other hand, the fact that the patent proprietor filed a requested amendment after the end of the time-limit, at Oral Proceedings, did not prevent admission of the amendment. The communication under Article 15(1) RPBA differed from a communication under Rule 100(2) EPC which had legally defined consequences.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Lars De Haas, Reporter EPO Mechanical Engineering |
|
| |
|
Source: Kluwer Patent Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Netherlands |
|
| |
|
European Patent Organization |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 23-2124 & 23-2125, 03 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
The Board’s obviousness determinations were affirmed because they did not contradict an earlier decision and were supported by substantial evidence.
PNC Bank successfully demonstrated the obviousness of patent claims related to taking photographs of checks using a mobile device, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision on that issue was not called into question by an earlier opinion which had reached a different conclusion on a different record among different parties (United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A., No. 23-2124 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Telit Cinterion Deutschland GmbH v. 3G Licensing, S.A., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 23-1497, 23-1498 & 23-1499, 03 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) correctly found original claims unpatentable but erred in its written description analysis for amended claims.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the PTAB's decision in an inter partes review (IPR) concerning a mobile network communication patent owned by 3G Licensing, S.A. The appellate court upheld the PTAB’s determination that all challenged original claims of the patent at issue were unpatentable. However, it vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision upholding substitute claims 69 and 77, concluding that the Board’s written description analysis was flawed and required further review (Telit Cinterion Deutschland GmbH v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Nos. 23-1497, 23-1498, 23-1499 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Saurabh Kashyap, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 24-2009, 24-2019 & 24-2156, 29 January 2025 |
|
| |
|
An injunction was properly issued because the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the defendant failed to raise a substantial question of patent invalidity in its attack on the patent owner’s likelihood of success on the merits.
A German pharmaceutical company failed to show any error in a district court decision granting a preliminary injunction against the company’s sale of a biosimilar biologic eye treatment product, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. A West Virginia district court had personal jurisdiction to issue the injunction due to the company’s demonstrated intent to sell, through a third party, the infringing product within the court’s geographic jurisdiction. The court also did not err in finding that the German company had not raised a substantial question of the invalidity of the asserted patent due to obviousness-type double patenting (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 24-2009 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-1920, 23-2171 & 23-2172, 30 January 2025 |
|
| |
|
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) correctly invalidated one patent and specific claims of another for obviousness but erred in its motivation-to-combine analysis for the second leading to the reversal of non-unpatentability findings.
In separate appeals concerning the PTAB decisions in two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld PNC Bank, N.A.’s challenges to two of United Services Automobile Association’s (USAA) check deposit patents. The appellate court fully affirmed the PTAB’s determination that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559 (the ’559 patent) were unpatentable as obvious. In a related appeal, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the PTAB's decision on U.S. Patent No. 10,769,598 (the '598 patent). It upheld the PTAB's determination that specific claims were unpatentable as obvious over prior art while reversing the board's decision to uphold other claims after finding that the PTAB applied an overly rigid standard in its motivation-to-combine analysis. As a result, the ’559 patent remains entirely invalid, while additional claims in the ’598 patent were also found unpatentable, beyond what the PTAB had initially determined (United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 23-1920 and No. 23-2171 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 30, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Saurabh Kashyap, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-1517, 29 January 2025 |
|
| |
|
Claims relating to the sequencing of fetal DNA were not shown to be obvious or anticipated because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) properly relied on the plain language of the claims and expert testimony in its decision.
Labcorp failed to show any error in the PTAB’s determination that it failed to show the invalidity of a competitor’s patent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The PTAB’s underlying claim construction was supported by the plain language of the claims and the findings about the prior art were supported by substantial evidence (Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc., No. 23-1517 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Image Processing Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-2136, 29 January 2025 |
|
| |
|
A trial court’s claim construction underlying an invalidity determination was affirmed because it was consistent with the claim language, specification, and prosecution history.
A patentee for an image processing system failed to show any error in a Texas district court’s claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The trial court’s construction was entirely consistent with the claim language, specification, and prosecution history (Image Processing Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 23-2136 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 24-1965, 24-1966, 24-2082 & 24-2083, 29 January 2025 |
|
| |
|
District court correctly applied the four-part test for injunctive relief based on infringement likelihood, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest.
In a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court barring Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (Samsung) from launching SB15, a biosimilar version of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s aflibercept product, EYLEA®. The Federal Circuit held that the district court correctly exercised personal jurisdiction over Samsung and properly granted injunctive relief, finding that Regeneron demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that it would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, Samsung failed to raise a substantial question of patent validity, and the balance of hardships and public interest weighed in favor of Regeneron (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 24-1965 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Saurabh Kashyap, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-1777 & 23-1779, 07 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
District court improperly admitted expert testimony and denied a new trial, warranting reassignment on remand.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded a district court's post-trial rulings in Trudell Medical International Inc.'s patent infringement lawsuit against D R Burton Healthcare, LLC. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of Trudell's motion for a new trial, holding that the improper admission of untimely and unreliable expert testimony on non-infringement prejudiced the jury's verdict. It also found that the district court's handling of the case created an appearance of unfairness, warranting reassignment to a different district judge on remand. However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of Trudell's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on infringement, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's non-infringement verdict (Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare, LLC, No. 23-1777 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Saurabh Kashyap, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. ITC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-1389, 07 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
International Trade Commission’s finding of patent infringement was supported by substantial evidence.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission finding that Healthgen Biotechnology Corp.’s clinical grade serum albumin products infringe claims of a patent owned by Ventria Bioscience Inc. and that Ventria satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under subparagraph (a)(3) of 19 U.S.C. §1337 (§337) to warrant a limited exclusion order. The court found that substantial evidence, including expert testimony, peer-reviewed literature, and customer communications, supports the Commission’s findings (Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. ITC, No. 23-1389 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Patricia K. Ruiz, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-1397, 06 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
An error in claim construction did not require reversal of the Board’s decision because the use of the correct construction did not change the obviousness analysis.
A patentee of technology related to building microchips failed to show a reason to reverse a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination that was based on an incorrect claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The error was harmless as the claims were obvious in light of the prior art regardless of whether the correct or incorrect claim construction was used (HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc., No. 23-1397 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: US Synthetic Corp. v. ITC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-1217, 13 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
ITC’s patent ineligibility ruling reversed as the claims recited a specific composition of matter; enablement finding affirmed as the specification provided sufficient guidance for skilled artisans.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the US International Trade Commission's (ITC) ruling in a patent dispute concerning US Synthetic Corp.'s (USS) polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) patent. The court overturned the ITC's determination that USS's asserted patent was ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the claimed invention recited a specific composition of matter rather than an abstract idea. However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s enablement ruling, rejecting arguments that the patent required undue experimentation to practice the claimed invention. Thus, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion (US Synthetic Corp. v. ITC, No. 23-1217 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Saurabh Kashyap, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-1630, 12 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) improperly construed the term “impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot,” excluding disclosed embodiments and leading to an erroneous non-obviousness finding.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. against Power2B, Inc.’s interactive device patent. The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB had improperly construed the claim term “impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot,” leading to an erroneous determination that Samsung’s cited prior art did not disclose the limitation at issue. The appellate court found that the PTAB’s narrow construction excluded embodiments described in the patent specification and conflicted with intrinsic evidence, necessitating a reevaluation of Samsung’s obviousness challenge under the corrected claim construction (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B, Inc., No. 23-1630 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Saurabh Kashyap, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: In re Raiz, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 24-1533, 11 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
Patent claims for processing bank transfers using a blockchain were invalid as indefinite because they lacked a sufficiently specific structure corresponding to the claimed function of performing settlement of contracts and transfer of completion codes.
A patent application for bank transaction using blockchain was properly rejected by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as indefinite, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The sole independent claim was constructed as a means-plus-function claim in which the specification lacked the required structure corresponding to the claimed function (In re Raiz, No. 24-1533 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Kevin M. Finson, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 23-1359, 10 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
District court improperly applied collateral estoppel based on prior IPR rulings despite differing burdens of proof.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a federal district court’s dismissal of Kroy IP Holdings, LLC’s infringement lawsuit against Groupon, Inc. The appellate court found that the district court erred in applying collateral estoppel to preclude Kroy from asserting certain claims of its online incentive program patent. The Federal Circuit held that a prior inter partes review (IPR) decision invalidating other claims of the same patent did not automatically bar Kroy from asserting the newly asserted claims, as the differing burdens of proof between IPR proceedings and district court litigation rendered collateral estoppel inapplicable (Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., No. 23-1359 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Saurabh Kashyap, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Nutradose Labs, LLC v. Santamarta, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, No. 24-10381, 30 January 2025 |
|
| |
|
District court correctly rejected a former licensee’s valid license and first-sale defenses, finding unauthorized use of the GlutaDose trademark and consumer confusion over product origin.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a trademark infringement decision in favor of Nutradose Labs, LLC, upholding a district court’s ruling that an individual and his company, Bio Dose Pharma, LLC, unlawfully used the GlutaDose trademark. The appellate court found that the individual failed to establish a valid license defense, as the Trademark License Agreement between Bio Dose and Unipharma (the original owner) was extinguished during Unipharma’s bankruptcy proceedings, and that the first-sale doctrine did not apply because Bio Dose’s representations created consumer confusion regarding the origin of GlutaDose products (Nutradose Labs, LLC v. Santamarta, No. 24-10381 (11th Cir. Jan. 30, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Saurabh Kashyap, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA: Cardinal Motors, Inc. v. H&H Sports Protection USA Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 23-7586-cv, 06 February 2025 |
|
| |
|
District court erred in dismissing infringement claims for failure to articulate trade dress with precision; unfair competition claims revived as federal claims reinstated.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded a federal district court's dismissal of a motorcycle helmet maker’s trade dress infringement and unfair competition claims against H&H Sports Protection USA Inc., holding that the district court improperly conflated trade dress articulation with distinctiveness. The appellate court ruled that the plaintiff adequately identified the components of its trade dress and that its federal claims were wrongly dismissed. Because the district court had dismissed the state-law unfair competition claims solely due to the dismissal of the federal claims, the appellate court reinstated them as well (Cardinal Motors, Inc. v. H&H Sports Protection USA Inc., No. 23-7586-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2025)).
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Saurabh Kashyap, Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US |
|
| |
|
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases
Date: 17 Feb 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United States of America |
|
| |
|
United States of America |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
