BAXALTA INC. V. GENENTECH, INC.
Before Moore, Plager, and Wallach. Appeal from the District of Delaware
Summary: A district court erred by interpreting a specification’s description of an “antibody” as a definition, when that description contradicted other portions of the specification and several dependent claims.
NEVILLE v. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Summary: The Federal Circuit affirmed a construction of “end plate” that required a flat external surface, and therefore precluded an infringement theory in which the “end plate” was an imaginary slice inside the accused product.
EGENERA, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
Before Prost, Stoll, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: A patentee that successfully petitioned to correct a patent’s inventorship by removing a named inventor was permitted to seek a second correction to restore the same inventor, based on an intervening claim construction that the patentee had opposed.
With the rapid spread of COVID-19, countries around the world are implementing contact-tracing practices, which involve identifying people who may have COVID-19 and notifying those individuals’ contacts for them to get tested and/or quarantined. Although contact tracing is an effective tool to interrupt further transmission of a virus, it raises privacy concerns. Some of these privacy concerns include whether the government authority or private sector partner (e.g., a mobile application service provider) is: (1) providing adequate notice to data subjects regarding the personal data collected, what it is used for, and who it is shared with; (2) obtaining the data subjects’ consent before collecting the personal data; (3) limiting the amount of personal data collected; (4) using the personal data only for its intended purpose; (5) deleting the personal data when it is no longer needed; and (6) providing data subjects certain rights, such as the right to access, correct and delete their personal data. These privacy measures are particularly important in the modern era because contact-tracing mobile applications have the capacity to collect massive amounts of personal data relating to a person’s daily life, including their precise geolocation data, the persons they interact with, and the places they frequently visit, which may include places of worship and political organizations.
CHRISTY, INC. v. UNITED STATES
Before LOURIE, REYNA, and HUGHES. Appeal from the Court of Federal Claims.
Summary: The government’s refusal to refund patent issue and maintenance fees after patent claims are canceled during inter partes review does not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking or an illegal exaction.
RICHARD SOWINSKI v. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Before Newman, Lourie, and Schall. Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: Res judicata may bar subsequent claims regarding conduct substantially similar to conduct accused in a prior action that was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
SECURITY PEOPLE, INC. v. IANCU
Before Lourie, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Summary: Congress foreclosed the possibility of Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding by district courts. The America Invents Act (AIA) provides an adequate remedy in a court for a constitutional challenge through appeals to the Federal Circuit of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decisions.
On August 14, 2020, the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) approved the final regulations for the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which are now in full effect. The California Office of the Attorney General first proposed regulations for the CCPA in October 2019, and the regulations have since gone through several rounds of revisions.
The PTAB has been grappling with how to manage IPR petitions for patents that are also being challenged in federal district court, particularly when the district court is set to determine the patent validity prior to the PTAB’s final written decision. The PTAB must weigh whether conducting a full IPR trial is a wise use of its resources when the district court will have already reached its own conclusion.
In June 2019, Maine’s state legislature passed the country’s first privacy law specifically regulating Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) operating within the state. The law was introduced in response to the Trump Administration repealing an Obama Administration rule from 2017 that governed ISPs’ use of customer data. The Maine law, An Act to Protect the Online Privacy of Consumer Information, was passed with bipartisan support and closely replicates the repealed federal provisions. The law went into effect on July 1, 2020.
