PIANO FACTORY GROUP, INC. v. SCHIEDMAYER CELESTA GMBH

Before Prost, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The appointments of TTAB judges do not share the constitutional defect that the Supreme Court remedied for PTAB judges in Arthrex.

BELCHER PHARMACEUTICALS v. HOSPIRA, INC.

Before Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the District of Delaware.

Summary: A patentee committed inequitable conduct by advancing an argument during patent prosecution that contradicted the patentee’s prior arguments and evidence submitted to the FDA.

LUBBY HOLDINGS LLC v. CHUNG

Before Dyk, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the Central District of California.

Summary: Specific charges of infringement by a specific accused product are required to provide actual notice under 35 U.S.C. § 287 and thereby support an award of pre-suit damages.

Can certain specific medical device details remain company know-how or protected trade secrets even if patents are pursued on the medical device? Consider the Seventh Circuit’s commentary in its August 9, 2021 decision upholding a preliminary injunction in the Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis Spine, Inc. case. The preliminary injunction prohibits Aegis from selling or marketing its competing AccelFix product (shown below, right) until the case is resolved on the merits.

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.

Before Newman, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Summary: When relying upon lump sum payments in a prior license agreement to support a reasonable royalty rate, explanation as to how the royalty rate is derived from the lump sum payment is needed, the theory and underlying facts/documents should be disclosed before expert discovery, and apportionment between patented and non-patented features must be considered absent reliance on a comparable license.

JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. KITE PHARMA, INC.
Before Moore, Prost, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Summary: Knowledge of a common general structure and the disclosure of two representative species is insufficient to support the written description of a functionally-claimed genus when the claimed function results from specific structures and the specification does not provide distinguishing characteristics for structures that achieve the claimed function and those that do not.

DATA ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. GOOGLE LLC
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: A patentee that relies on language in the preamble to successfully argue that its claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter cannot later assert that this preamble language has no limiting effect for the purposes of determining infringement.

UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC v. APPLE INC.
Before Taranto, Wallach, and Stoll. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: A patentee’s reference to existing known methods and techniques in a specification, without providing technical details or unexpected results, may present patentable subject matter vulnerabilities during litigation.

COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC.

Before Stoll, Reyna, and Schall. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Summary: When a party distinguishes technology in the prior art to preserve validity, that same technology may not simultaneously be grounds for infringement when in an accused product.

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY V. GAMON PLUS, INC.

Before Moore, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The standards for establishing a presumption of nexus or a nexus-in-fact between objective indicia of nonobviousness and patent claims are the same for design and utility patents.