ILLUMINA, INC. v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
Before Lourie, Moore, and Reyna. Modified opinion following Ariosa rehearing petition.

Summary: The Federal Circuit modified its earlier decision and clarified the difference between a natural phenomenon and human engineering.

AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING v. NEAPCO HOLDINGS LLC

Before Dyk, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: Claims directed to a law of nature, without more, may not be patent eligible.

ALACRITECH, INC. V. INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, LLC, DELL, INC.

Before Stoll, Chen, and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The PTAB’s obviousness determination must meet the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements to be upheld on appeal.

XY, LLC v. TRANS OVA GENETICS, LC

Before Wallach, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Summary: Claims directed to improving a method of operating an apparatus may be patent eligible subject matter.

IBSA INSTITUT BIOCHIMIQUE, S.A. V. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.

Before Prost, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court of Delaware

Summary: A term may be indefinite when the proposed construction is not supported by the record and the meaning is not reasonably ascertainable from the record.

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC. V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
Before Prost, Newman, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Summary: The scope of a contract term may not be interpreted to render a provision or term meaningless.

Generally, personal data may not be transferred to countries outside of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) unless the European Commission has deemed the third country adequate to receive personal data. To date, the following countries are considered adequate to receive personal data from the EEA: Andorra, Argentina, Canada (except if recipient is a public body), Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland and Uruguay. If a data exporter plans on transferring personal data to a recipient in a country that has not received an adequacy decision, it must rely on specific data transfer mechanisms approved under the GDPR, such as Binding Corporate Rules, European Commission Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”), and previously, in the case of the United States, the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“the Privacy Shield”).

FANDUEL, INC. v. INTERACTIVE GAMES LLC

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

Summary: The Board does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) if it institutes trial and then reconsiders the substantive merits of petitioner’s theories even in the absence of challenge by the patent owner.

AUSTRALIAN THERAPEUTIC v. NAKED TM, LLC

Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Summary: Standing to Challenge A Registered Mark at the TTAB Does Not Depend on the Challenger’s Proprietary Right to a Similar Mark

A brand owner discloses almost every week that a security or data breach has occurred. For privacy, operations, and trademark professionals alike, the ramifications of a data breach extend far beyond the direct costs of containing the breach.