IN RE: STINGRAY IP SOLUTIONS, LLC
Before Lourie, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Summary: A defendant’s post-suit, unilateral consent to suit in another state cannot defeat personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2).
DIONEX SOFTRON GMBH v. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Before: Reyna, Chen, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The PTAB did not err in considering evidence corroborating actual reduction to practice when determining priority in an interference proceeding.
Cochlear implant developer Advanced Bionics LLC will pay about $12 million to resolve allegations that it misled federal health care programs, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced. The allegations were in connection with information provided within pre-market approval (PMA) applications to the FDA for cochlear implant processors, as reported by a DOJ press release dated December 20, 2022.
GENENTECH, INC. V. SANDOZ INC. Before Newman, Lourie, and Prost. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: The district court did not clearly err…
PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC. V. PREMIUM WATERS, INC.
Before Newman, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Summary: An overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of summary judgment is not sufficient if the nonmoving party presents evidence on which a reasonable factfinder could rely.
ADASA INC. v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION
Before Moore, Hughes and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Summary: A claim directed to a specific, hardware-based data structure that enables technological improvements is more than an abstract idea and is eligible under 35 U.S.C § 101.
French medical device company BIOCORP announced in a press release that it received FDA 510(k) clearance for Mallya, a device that according to the company allows insulin pen injectors to capture and transmit injection data such as dose, date, and time of injection to a mobile app via Bluetooth.
GOOGLE LLC v. HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Before Moore, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Collateral estoppel applies to IPRs where differences in claims do not materially alter the question of patentability.
Earlier this year, AliveCor, Inc., a medical device and AI company producing electrocardiogram (ECG) hardware and software for consumer mobile devices, succeeded in convincing an International Trade Commission (ITC) judge that Apple Inc. infringed multiple, valid claims of three AliveCor patents on ECG technology. By December 12, 2022, the full ITC is expected to issue a final decision in that investigation (337-TA-1266).
TREEHOUSE AVATAR LLC v. VALVE CORPORATION
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Summary: The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking expert testimony inconsistent with the court’s claim construction. Nor did the district court err in granting summary judgment of noninfringement after striking the expert testimony.
