SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. DROPBOX, INC.

Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Summary: A claim construed to require hardware does not cover software alone.

MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC v. CROCS, INC.

Before Newman, Dyk, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The purchaser or assignee of all assets and interests of the requester of inter partes reexamination could substitute as real-party-in-interest at the PTAB and could assume the original requester’s Article III standing to appeal.

Infinity Computer Products v. Oki Data Americas, Inc.

Before Prost, Clevenger, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: Contradictory positions taken during prosecution and reexamination regarding the scope of the claims render the claims indefinite.

CXLOYALTY, INC. v. MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.

Before Prost, Lourie, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: A claim implementing an abstract idea using conventional techniques is patent ineligible.

CHUDIK V. HIRSHFELD

Before Taranto, Bryson, and Hughes. Appeal from the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Summary: An examiner’s self-reversal may not qualify as “reversing an adverse determination.”

Following its “Brexit” from the EU on January 31, 2020, the UK had until December 31, 2020 to bring its data privacy laws into compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). As of January 1, 2021, the UK is a “third country” under the GDPR. However, on December 24, 2020, the EU and UK entered into the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

M & K HOLDINGS, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Before Moore, Bryson, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Title-searchable publications shared on a prominent standards-setting organization’s website are printed publications. Board committed procedural error by adopting a theory of anticipation that could not be reconciled with petitioner’s theory of obviousness.

On November 30, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law New York Senate Bill S5959D, an amendment to New York’s right of publicity law to provide the 40 year post-mortem right of estates of deceased celebrities and performers to protect their likenesses and rights of publicity. When the new law goes into effect May 31, 2021, New York will join California, Tennessee, and 21 other states in recognizing a post-mortem right of publicity.

QUIKTRIP WEST, INC. V. WEIGEL STORES, INC.

Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Reyna. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: When comparing marks under the Dupont factors, the Board may give less weight to shared terms that are highly suggestive if not descriptive. Further, a party’s willingness to alter its mark multiple times to prevent customer confusion demonstrates a lack of bad faith.

SIMO HOLDINGS INC. v. HONG KONG UCLOUDLINK NETWORK

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

Summary: A claim construction that excludes an embodiment disclosed in the specification is proper where the claim language and intrinsic evidence sufficiently indicate that the disclosed embodiment is not within the scope of the claim.