Skip to content

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.

CUPP COMPUTING AS v. TREND MICRO INC. [OPINION]
Before Dyk, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Patent Owners cannot attempt to narrow claims by disclaiming claim scope during an IPR proceeding.

AMERICAN NATIONAL v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION [OPINION]- PRECEDENTIAL
Before Stoll, Schall, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-00497 and IPR2019 00500.
Summary: Once a patent owner includes at least one amendment that is responsive to an instituted unpatentability ground, the patent owner may include more amendments to address other non-instituted grounds, such as potential § 101 and § 112 issues.

Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) announced on November 1, 2022, that it will acquire Abiomed for an upfront payment of $380.00 per share in cash, which equates to about $16.6 billion. The acquisition is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2023. According to reports, after the acquisition, Abiomed “will operate as a standalone business within J&J within Johnson & Johnson MedTech, becoming one of the company’s dozen ‘priority platforms,’ defined by annual sales of at least $1 billion.”

SOCLEAN, INC. v. SUNSET HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Before Newman, Lourie, and Prost. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: A trademark is entitled to a statutory presumption of validity even if the trademark examiner did not follow Patent and Trademark Office procedures during prosecution.

UNILOC 2017 LLC v. GOOGLE LLC
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: An “irrevocable” patent license could be terminated by mutual agreement and such a license was not a right that by its nature would fall within a survival provision of a termination agreement.

Older posts
- Newer posts