Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Summary:  For divided infringement under § 271(a), an accused infringer does not avoid liability merely because the third party is not obligated to perform the patented steps.  As long as the third party must perform the patented steps to receive value from the accused infringer, the third-party’s actions may be attributed to the accused infringer.

Virtual reality is not just a growing trend in the entertainment industry, but is now reaching the healthcare field. As the technology improves and develops, the uses of virtual reality expand for doctors, students, and patients.

Before Dyk, Moore, and Stoll.  Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary:  The bar in § 2(a) of the Lanham Act against registering immoral or scandalous trademarks is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech under the First Amendment.  This follows six months after the Supreme Court held in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), that the bar against registering  disparaging trademarks also violates the First Amendment.  

On October 24, 2017, the FDA announced new steps that it is taking to promote beneficial medical device innovation.

The FDA recently approved Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System.  According to Bloomberg, this device marks the first continuous glucose monitoring system that adults can use that does not…

The FDA recently cleared the first medical device accessory for the Apple Watch — AliveCor’s KardiaBand.  According to AliveCor, the Kardiaband is a mobile, real-time electrocardiogram (EKG) reader that can record an EKG within 30 seconds and display the results on the Apple Watch or iPhone.  In conjunction with the KardiaBand, AliveCor is introducing “SmartRhythm, a new feature within the Kardia app for the Apple Watch.” 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released finalized guidance regarding 3D printing in medical devices.  The guidance document, which issued on December 5, 2017, is based on the FDA’s review of more than 100 devices currently on the market that are manufactured using 3D printers.  Importantly, many of these devices can be tailored to fit a specific patient’s anatomy.  For example, the FDA has reviewed 3D-printed knee replacements and implants for facial reconstruction.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released finalized guidance regarding 3D printing in medical devices.  The guidance document, which issued on December 5, 2017, is based on the FDA’s review of more than 100 devices currently on the market that are manufactured using 3D printers.  Importantly, many of these devices can be tailored to fit a specific patient’s anatomy.  For example, the FDA has reviewed 3D-printed knee replacements and implants for facial reconstruction

Before Moore, Plager, and Stoll.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Summary: In challenging compliance with the marking requirement of § 287(a), an accused infringer need only identify the unmarked products sold or licensed by the patentee that it believes are covered by the patents in suit, at which point the burden shifts to the patentee to show that the identified products do not practice the patented invention.

Before Wallach, Chen, and Stoll.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: Even if a patentee’s initial complaint was reasonable, the patentee can be liable for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 if it does not reassess the merits of its case in view of new controlling law.