BITMANAGEMENT SOFTWARE GMBH v. UNITED STATES

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Summary: The U.S. Navy infringed Bitmanagement’s software copyright by copying its software outside the scope of an implied license.

It’s generally recognized that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) can apply to entities outside the European Union. However, scant court rulings guide non-European controllers and processors on this question. The English High Court’s recent decision in Soriano v. Forensic News LLC and others (2021) helps fill the gap.

SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION

Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: A finding during inter partes reexamination that two references would not be combined precluded a finding of obviousness based on the same two references in a later proceeding.

JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORP. v. MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Before, Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Summary: Recoupment of monetary investment is not the sole factor a court must consider, nor a factor that must be weighed more heavily, when determining entitlement to a defense of equitable intervening rights.

CANFIELD SCIENTIFIC, INC. v. MELANOSCAN, LLC
Before Newman, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The PTAB’s refusal to consider presented arguments and evidence can be a misapplication of the law of obviousness.

A recent legal decision held that privacy guarantees in the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) do not prevent discovery in civil litigation. In Will Kaupelis v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., the Central District of California concluded the CCPA does not limit the scope of discovery in civil litigation because it does not restrict the ability to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM, Dkt, No. 158 (C.D. Cal Jan. 22, 2021).

On January 13, 2021, the FTC announced that fertility app developer Flo Health, Inc. (“Flo”) agreed to a settlement over allegations that the company shared app users’ health information with third-party data analytics providers, including Facebook and Google. The FTC originally filed the complaint against Flo after 2019 media reports alleged that the app used by more than 100 million consumers had shared customer information despite representations that Flo would keep such information private.

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.