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.
GENSETIX, INC. V. BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Summary: A state can invoke sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to protect against involuntary joinder from patent suits.
UNILOC 2017 LLC v. HULU, LLC
Before O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto. O’Malley dissenting. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Board did not exceed its statutory authority in an inter partes review proceeding by rejecting proposed substitute claims for lack of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With all the buzz about the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), it seems easy for businesses to miss or overlook other important state legislation from the past year. One such law is SB 220 (2019), better known as the 2019 Amendment to the Nevada Privacy Law (“Amended Nevada Privacy Law”).
