Knobbe/Martens: Intellectual Property Law

Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation Blog

GREGORY C. JAMES V. J2 CLOUD SERVICES

April 20, 2018 Baraa Kahf and Bryan J. Johnson

Editor: Paul Stewart

Federal Circuit Summaries

Before Reyna, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

VOTER VERIFIED, INC. v. ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE LLC

April 20, 2018 Mark Kachner and Janet M. Olsen, Ph.D.

Before Newman, Lourie, and Reyna.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Summary: Collateral estoppel does not apply to a prior decision of no invalidity under § 101, where the issue was not actually litigated.

 

DROPLETS, INC. v. E*TRADE BANK

April 20, 2018 Adam Powell and Alexander D. Zeng

Before Dyk, O’Malley, and Wallach.  Appeal from the PTAB.

Summary: A priority claim must be explicitly stated in the patent and cannot be incorporated by reference from an earlier patent.  

 

JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION v. MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC

April 20, 2018 Adam Powell and Lindsay Laddaran

Before Prost, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Summary: Pre-reexamination conduct cannot be a basis for equitable estoppel if the asserted claims were substantively amended and narrowed during reexamination. 

RANIERE v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

April 18, 2018 Mark Kachner and Sean S. Kim

Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Summary: When a case is dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing, the defendant is the prevailing party for purposes of fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

APATOR MIITORS APS V. KAMSTRUP A/S

April 17, 2018 Baraa Kahf and David C. Kellogg

Before Moore, Linn, and Chen.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: A party seeking to swear behind prior art using an inventor’s testimony must proffer corroborating evidence that does not depend solely on the inventor’s testimony itself.

 

SUMITOMO DAINIPPON PHARMA CO. v. EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS

April 17, 2018 Benjamin Anger and Aaron S. Johnson

Before Moore, Mayer, and Stoll.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Summary: Plain claim language will not be narrowed based on a patent’s specification unless the patentee clearly and explicitly disclaims claim scope.

 

VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS INC. V. WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Before Prost, Lourie and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary:  When another patent for a drug issues after an ANDA is filed, there can still be jurisdiction for an infringement lawsuit and a finding of infringement of that patent even when the ANDA is not amended until after the lawsuit is filed. 

 

 

KNOWLES ELECTRONICS LLC V. IANCU

April 9, 2018 Karen M. Cassidy and Benjamin Ho

Before Newman, Clevenger, and Wallach.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The USPTO has standing to intervene to defend its decision, even when the requestor has withdrawn.

 

ORACLE AMERICA, INC. V. GOOGLE LLC

March 27, 2018 Adam Powell and Shuchen Gong

Before O’Malley, Plager and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge William H. Alsup.

Summary: Historical findings of fact relevant to copyright fair use can be resolved by a jury, but the district court must resolve all inferences drawn from those facts and the ultimate conclusion of fair use. 

 

Pages

Attorney Finder