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.

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.