On December 19, 2017, a seven-judge expanded PTAB panel ruled that the University of Minnesota (UM) waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity defense when it filed a patent infringement action in federal district court. Eleventh Amendment immunity had been the focus of several previous PTAB decisions, but these previous decisions did not involve a sovereign who had filed an infringement action in federal court before an IPR petition was filed.
Before Wallach, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
Summary: Reexaminations of patents confirming validity are not dispositive of validity in district court. Furthermore, in a multicomponent product, damages must be apportioned between the patented improvement and conventional components, and expert testimony on damages must adequately tie a proposed reasonable royalty to the facts of the case.
Before Newman, O’Malley, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Summary: A co-inventor did not transfer ownership interests in a patent under a California employment agreement that included a “will assign” provision, a trust provision, and a quitclaim provision.
Before Dyk, Linn, and Hughes. Appeal from the Northern District of California.
Summary: Claims directed to behavior-based virus scanning, as opposed to the traditional code-matching method, constituted a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality. Also, for reasonable royalty damages, apportionment beyond the smallest, identifiable technical component of an accused product is required if the technical component contains non-infringing features.
A report appearing in the December 2017 issue of Value in Health, concluded that assessments of high-risk medical devices in the European Union were of low quality.
Microbot Medical Inc. announced that it entered into an agreement with CardioSert Ltd. to acquire CardioSert’s patented guidewire technology, including R&D information, technical know-how, and intellectual property.
En banc, Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Federal Circuit can review the Board’s decision whether an IPR is time barred under § 315(b).
En banc, Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Federal Circuit can review the Board’s decision whether an IPR is time barred under § 315(b).
Before Dyk, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Extrinsic evidence can be used to find that an allegedly anticipating reference necessarily includes relevant claim limitations.
Before Newman, O’Malley, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Anticipation is not proven by multiple, distinct teachings in a single prior art document that a skilled artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.
