ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC v. SNYDERS HEART VALVE LLC

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

Summary: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim must be considered in light of the specification.

WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC., v. SASSO

Before Newman, Schall, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

Summary: A federal court properly exercises its discretion to abstain from deciding declaratory judgment claims when the parties’ dispute can better be settled in a pending state court proceeding.

IMMUNEX CORPORATION v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC

Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Expiration of a patent during appeal from IPR does not trigger claim construction under the Phillips standard when the expiration was caused by litigant’s filing of terminal disclaimer and the IPR was filed before the Phillips standard applied in all IPRs.

On October 12, 2020, the California Attorney General published a Third Set of Modified Proposed Regulations (“Modified Regulations”) even though the final text of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) regulations are already in full effect. In sum, the Modified Regulations only make minor edits to the final CCPA regulations. They provide additional guidance on how to implement the CCPA’s right to opt-out of sale of personal information and modify the text related to how authorized agents can submit data privacy requests on behalf of consumers.

ANTENNASYS, INC. v. AQYR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Before, O’Malley, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire

Summary: The Federal Circuit held that claim construction issues in a contract dispute did not meet the “substantiality” prong of the Supreme Court’s Gunn v. Minton test for independent federal jurisdiction.

On September 25, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the California Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”), about which we reported here.

UPDATE: On September 25, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the California Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”), about which we reported here.

On August 31, 2020, the California Legislature passed the Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”), which regulates the privacy and security aspects of Direct-to-Consumer (“DTC”) genetic testing and testing companies. If Governor Gavin Newsom signs GIPA into law, it will take effect on January 1, 2021.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [OPINION] – PRECEDENTIAL

Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Summary: Evidence of inducement for a method of administering a drug is not limited to the indications of use on a generic drug label. Promoting a generic drug as equivalent to branded drug may be sufficient to induce infringement of a method covering use for which the generic drug is not indicated.

BIOGEN MA INC. v. EMD SERONO, INC.

Before Newman, Linn, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court of the District of New Jersey.

Summary: A known method of administering a known product made by a new process is not novel.

The California Legislature has delayed its plans to expand the scope of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) and make all of its provisions apply to personal information related to business-to-business communications and transactions and human resources data.