AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC v. ALMIRALL, LLC
Before Dyk, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: While the Federal Circuit may be able to award fees under Section 285 for work performed during appellate proceedings, it cannot award fees for prior work performed during IPR proceedings at the Patent Office.
On May 12, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued over 700 new design patents. Fashion-related designs figured prominently among the new patent grants including accessories like eyeglasses (see U.S. Design Patent Nos. D884,062-D884,067), jewelry, watches, and gemstones (D883,835-D883,852), or shoe-related designs (D883,617-D883,650). There were also design patent grants for “Utility glove” (D883,610), “Brassiere” (D883,611), “Garment” (D883,612), “Swaddle sack” (D883,613), “Bodysuit” (D883,614), “Shirred relaxed fit dress” (D883,615), and “Short kaftan with hardware” (D883,616).
MCRO, INC. v. BANDAI NAMCO GAMES AMERICA
Before Reyna, Mayer and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Summary: The scope of a claim term may be limited when intrinsic evidence establishes the context of the patent to be narrowly focused.
ODYSSEY LOGISTICS AND TECH. v. IANCU
Before Lourie, Reyna and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Summary: PTO procedural actions are not appealable before the Board has issued a final decision. Statute of limitations for facially challenging amendments to PTO rules runs from the date of publication.
With social media popularity comes more followers. With more followers comes opportunities to market products online. But as the wellness-company Teami discovered, with online marketing comes increased FTC scrutiny.
ESIP SERIES 2, LLC V. PUZHEN LIFE USA, LLC
Before Reyna, Lourie, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The PTAB’s determination that an IPR petition identifies all real parties in interest is final and non-appealable.
COCHLEAR BONE ANCHORED SOLUTIONS AB V. OTICON MED. AB
Before Taranto, O’Malley, and Newman. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Anticipation and obviousness analysis by the PTAB is not impossible when some but not all claimed alternatives are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
LANARD TOYS LIMITED V. DOLGENCORP LLC, JA-RU, INC., AND TOYS “R” US
Before Lourie, Mayer, and Wallach. Appeal from the District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Summary: A useful article is not copyrightable if the asserted expression is not separable from the utilitarian aspects of the article.
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM, LLC
Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC (“ECT”) sued ShoppersChoice.com, LLC (“SC”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261 (“the ’261 patent”). SC moved for judgment on the pleadings that claim 11 of the ’261 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted the motion. ECT appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the invalidity of claim 11.
Traditionally, it has been fairly uncommon to see new legislation in intellectual property (IP) law, compared to other areas of law. Instead, courts have generally been the avenue through which changes in IP law have been brought about and, for some, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2012 is the most recent IP legislation of particular relevance. This can provide a certain confidence to companies exploring or entering the IP field. However, developments associated with the coronavirus pandemic have, for some, highlighted issues with balancing the rights of a patent owner with a protection of the national interest.
