On June 19, 2020, Kim Kardashian West’s (“Kardashian West”) company KKW Beauty, LLC (“KKW”) was sued in California Superior Court by its business partners Seed Beauty (“Seed”) alleging trade secret infringement. According to the complaint, the action was brought after KKW engaged in business discussions with Seed’s competitor, to “prevent irreparable harm … arising from the imminent and material threat of KKW’s misappropriation of highly sensitive and confidential trade secret information … to one of Seed’s largest competitors, Coty.” Seed Beauty, LLC and MM Cosmetics, LLC v. KKW Beauty, LLC, 20VECV00684 (Cal.Sup.)(June 2020). The complaint can be accessed here.

In March 2020, Washington state passed the first law expressly regulating the government’s use of facial recognition technology and the service providers who provide this technology to the government. The law, SB 6280, was signed by Governor Jay Inslee and goes into effect in July 2021.

BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. 10X GENOMICS INC.

Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: Where elements of preamble are limiting, indivisible terms in the remainder of the preamble are also limiting; under balance of hardships analysis a permanent injunction should not extend to products for which there are no non-infringing alternatives.

FASTSHIP, LLC v. US
Before Dyk, Wallach, and Chen. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Summary: A Court of Claims fee award under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), turns on whether the government’s litigation conduct was substantially justified without regard to its pre-litigation conduct.

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.