CATERPILLAR PAVING PRODUCTS v. WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Remand of an IPR based on Arthrex is not justified where the final written decision issued after the decision in Arthrex.

CIENA CORPORATION v. OYSTER OPTICS, LLC

Before Moore, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Affirmatively petitioning for IPR waives the petitioner’s Appointments Clause challenge, such that the petitioner may not request remand and a new panel under Arthrex.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC.
Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Because a mapping technique must be performed on either a server or a terminal, using a server-side technique disclosed in one piece of prior art was a “predictable variation” of the terminal-side technique disclosed in another piece of prior art.

Shutdown orders due to the COVID-19 virus pandemic have created economic disruption, causing companies to scale back on intellectual property (IP) expense. This creates an opportunity to move ahead of the competition. This is especially true because the U.S. patent system, and many others around the world, reward the first inventor to file.
Below are some suggestions for protecting your IP on a reduced budget. This is not an exhaustive list. It is also not right for everyone. You should consult with legal counsel about your IP and what is right for your company.

GRIT ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC v. OREN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Before Prost, Newman, Wallach. On appeal from The Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: IPR petitioner has standing to appeal an adverse Board decision even after divesting the products previously accused of infringement.

UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto. On appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of California.

Summary: A claim is not abstract where it is directed to an improved communication system that changes the normal operation of a system.

HITKANSUT LLC V. UNITED STATES

Before Prost, Clevenger, and Moore. Appeal from the Court of Federal Claims.

Summary: Fee-shifting under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), turns on whether “the position of the United States was substantially justified.” The relevant inquiry is the government’s position during litigation, not pre-litigation conduct.

In the realm of software development, the Open-Source movement emphasizes a decentralized development model predicated on making source code freely available for peer-to-peer collaboration and academic study. When copyright holders of open source software grant such broad licenses to the public, one purported advantage is that increased collaboration results in increased knowledge and discovery.

About 40 years ago, marketing strategists Al Ries and Jack Trout offered the world a way to think about making a brand memorable. The best way to be remembered is to be first into your prospect’s mind representing a clear perception. For many products, the brand name has become synonymous with their function. It’s no accident they were also first. People love what is new. One of the “new” trends is based on the current pandemic – coronavirus/COVID-19. However, not all words and phrases can function as a trademark.

On April 10, personal protective equipment (“PPE”) manufacturer 3M filed suit against Performance Supply LLC for trademark infringement, deceptive practices, and false advertising. In its complaint, 3M alleges that Performance Supply offered to sell several million N-95 respirator masks to New York’s Office of Citywide Procurement in March. An exhibit filed with the complaint shows a price quote offered to the city, with Performance Supply quoting seven million masks at between $6.05 to $6.35 per mask. In contrast, 3M’s suggested retail price for the respirators is between $1.02 and $1.31 per mask. Beyond mere price gouging, Performance Supply is not an authorized distributor of 3M masks and is not affiliated with 3M in any way. “To dupe city officials into thinking Performance Supply was an authorized distributor, the lawsuit says, the company used the 3M trademark throughout the price quote document and technical specification sheets.”