PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES OF CALIFORNIA v. OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES
Before Lourie, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Enablement is required for the full scope of the claimed invention.
On April 27, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed against Google, Inc. (“Google”) alleging that the Google-Apple Exposure Notification System, (“Gaen”) – the company’s COVID-19 contact tracking app – contained a flaw that may allow third parties to access user medical information. Google had promised users of GAEN that their medical information would be held in the utmost privacy. The company explained that “the list of people you’ve been in contact with doesn’t leave your phone unless you choose to share it,” implying the data was safe from unauthorized third-party access. Further, Google promised that data collected was all anonymized such that even if third parties could access the data, the information could not be linked to a particular individual.
CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC.
Before Dyk, Bryson, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Summary: A judgment and injunction were properly set aside pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(3) when it was discovered that the patentee’s president and testifying technical expert lied about knowledge of prior art during his deposition and the defendant had no reason to suspect the fraud.
What does it require to bring a transformational innovation to patients? To address this question, the UCLA Biodesign Hub for MedTech and Digital Health has launched an industry-wide study to uncover the cost and time to achieve regulatory and reimbursement approval in the United States and to understand the impact of regulation and reimbursement on the advancement of medical technology and digital health innovation. The last time such a study was conducted was over ten years ago.
MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC v. CROCS, INC.
Before Newman, Dyk, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Parties challenging patents in inter partes reexamination can assign their rights to others.
International sportswear company Nike filed a lawsuit against a Los Angeles-based manufacturer alleged to have produced thousands of inauthentic Nike® Dunk®-inspired sneakers.
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES V GENERAL ELECTRIC
Before Lourie, Chen, and Hughes.
Summary: Unrebutted evidence of non-enablement is sufficient to overcome an invalidity challenge based on a standalone §103 reference.
As of 2021, more than twice the number of data breaches are now being reported than 6 years ago and three times the number of data breaches that occurred in 2010. While credit cards and social security numbers are perennial favorites, cybercrime has begun to favor the theft of electronic medical records (EMR) as sources of revenue. With banks and major financial institutions starting to wise up and tighten their electronic security, cybercriminals have begun to target vulnerable healthcare institutions with a particular focus on the records of children, elderly people, and the deceased.
APPLE, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC.
Before Moore, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Apple lacked standing to appeal an IPR decision upholding patents it licenses from Qualcomm, despite Apple’s royalty payments for a portfolio including the patents at issue and the possibility that Qualcomm could assert those patents against Apple after the license expires.
WI-LAN INC. v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Before Dyk, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Source code evidence found to be inadmissible hearsay with no exception to save it.
