In April 2021, big-box retailer Walmart Apollo, LLC (“Walmart”) filed a trademark opposition against Yeezy LLC (“Yeezy”) U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88/746444 for its sun rays design mark, shown below (“Yeezy’s Mark”). Yeezy was founded and is owned by Kanye West, who Walmart describes as a “recording artist, record producer, fashion designer, and former candidate for President of the United States.”
NEW VISION GAMING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. V. SG GAMING, INC.
Before Newman, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two CBM decisions under Arthrex without resolving other issues raised on appeal, including whether a forum selection clause in a license agreement barred the CBM proceedings.
TRIMBLE INC. v. PERDIEMCO LLC
Before Judges Newman, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: Repeated email, phone, and letter communications threatening patent infringement litigation and negotiating a potential licensing arrangement with a company in forum state held sufficient for personal jurisdiction in forum state.
UNILOC 2017 LLC v. APPLE INC.
Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Evidence of the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “intercepting” as set forth in dictionary definitions was outweighed by evidence of the meaning of the term in the prosecution history, specification, and context of the claims.
FREE STREAM MEDIA CORP. v. ALPHONSO INC.
Before Judges Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Summary: Patent claims were directed to an abstract idea where the claims failed to recite any structure or concrete actions for achieving the claimed advance and the claimed advance did not the improve the operability of computing devices.
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.
