VIDSTREAM LLC V. TWITTER, INC.

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

Summary: Evidence of a prior art reference’s publication date submitted after an IPR petition may be appropriately considered by the Board if the evidence is a legitimate reply to a challenge by the patent owner.

When they launched “Call Her Daddy” in 2018, Sofia Franklyn and Alexandra Cooper were relatively unknown. They were two New York City friends candidly dishing about dating and sex without any euphemisms on the internet. Barstool Sports saw promise in their content, and signed the two to a three year contract. Now, each has a million Instagram followers (plus or minus) and together they have built a strong brand and a loyal audience by unabashedly offering their commentary and advice on modern relationships. Podcast listeners, self-identified as #DaddyGang, affectionately refer to Franklyn and Cooper as the “Founding Fathers.” To Barstool Sports, who signed Franklyn and Cooper to deliver their self-launched podcast on the Barstool platform, the duo were simply employees.

It well known that there are, unfortunately, many data breaches that frequently put private citizens’ data privacy in jeopardy. States have passed a variety of statutes aimed at addressing this problem in an attempt to provide data breach victims with some form of redress. Nonetheless, even where there has been a data breach, a plaintiff must meet certain requirements in order to have standing to bring a lawsuit in an Article III court. One such requirement, as the case described below illustrates, is that a plaintiff must have sufficiently pleaded injury-in-fact in his or her complaint.

VECTURA LIMITED v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC

Before Prost, Bryson, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Summary: Distinguishing prior art based on the structure of the particles, not the process used to manufacture them, does not import a process limitation into the claims.

SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.

Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Board’s determination that a patent qualifies for CBM review is non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 324(e).

While most 2020 media election coverage focused on the races for President and control of Congress, privacy also had its day at the ballot box.

IN RE: GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LLC

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

Summary: Claim construction arguments are forfeited if not raised before the PTAB.

Following the November 3, 2020 general elections, Californians voted Proposition 24 into law, which will implement the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”).

C R BARD INC. v. ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
Before Reyna, Schall, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: Claims that recited printed matter but arguably included an inventive concept beyond the printed matter itself were not patent-ineligible.

DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC

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

Summary: A determination as to whether a reference is analogous art to a claimed invention requires, in part, an identification and comparison of the purposes or problems to which the reference and the invention relate, from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”).