ABS GLOBAL, INC. V. CYTONOME/ST, LLC
Before Prost, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A patent owner may moot a petitioner’s appeal of an IPR final written decision of no unpatentability by declining to appeal a judgement of non-infringement in a litigation
As countries around the world begin administering COVID-19 vaccines, many institutions, both governmental and private, are considering the possibility of requiring proof of COVID-19 status to travel, work, and attend live-audience events. The International Air Transport Association (IATA), is one of many organizations developing a smartphone app that will allow travelers to display their COVID-19 status in airports. In the UK, VST Enterprises Limited has developed a similar app for sports attendance. These “digital health passports” may help society return to normal, but they also raise privacy concerns.
SIMIO, LLC V. FLEXSIM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, INC.
Before Prost, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
Summary: A claim whose only inventive concept is the applications of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques is not sufficient to transform the claim into a patent-eligible idea.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A party has standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision if it has concrete plans for future activity that creates a substantial risk of future infringement.
Royal Philips NV acquired BioTelemetry, Inc. for $2.8 billion US dollars. Headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania, BioTelemetry provides cardiac diagnostics and monitoring tools that, according to the press release, are expected to add to Philips’ line of hospital-based patient monitoring solutions.
In July 2020 the Court of Justice the European Union’s (CJEU) Schrems II decision declared the EU-US Privacy Shield Protections inadequate for the protection of European data. On November 10, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) released “Recommendations 01/2020 on measures that supplement transfer tools to ensure compliance with the EU level of protection of personal data.” The recommendations provide a framework for data exporters to analyze the protections afforded to European Union residents’ person data and ensure that throughout the data lifecycle data receive the protection demanded by EU privacy law as embodied in the GDPR and other regulations.
SIONYX LLC v. HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K.
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: A party who discloses confidential information pursuant to a NDA may be entitled to ownership of U.S. and foreign patents filed by the receiving party when the patents arise from confidential information provided by the disclosing party, and the terms of the NDA provide that any patents arising from confidential information are owned by the disclosing party, even if employees of the receiving party contribute to the patented invention.
On November 17, 2020, the Canadian House of Commons introduced the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020 (“DCIA”), which includes the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (“CPPA”), a privacy focused arm of the legislation. The full text of the Bill can be found here. The CPPA would act as an update and expansion to the pre-existing federal, privacy law.
On October 27, 2020, the District Court in the Western District of Texas issued its Final Judgment in L’Oreal USA Creative, Inc. v. Drunk Elephant, LLC, 1:18-cv-00982 (W.D.Tex.), which approved the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal in view of the settlement between L’Oreal USA Creative Inc. (“L’Oreal”) and Drunk Elephant, LLC (“Drunk Elephant”) thereby officially ending the two-year legal battle between the parties.
VIDSTREAM LLC V. TWITTER, INC.
Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Evidence of a prior art reference’s publication date submitted after an IPR petition may be appropriately considered by the Board if the evidence is a legitimate reply to a challenge by the patent owner.
