SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC.

Before Newman, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the Central District of California.

Summary: Summary judgment of obviousness is improper for a design patent if there is a genuine dispute as to whether a prior art design is “basically the same” as the claimed design.

STRATUS NETWORKS, INC. v. UBTA-UBET COMMUNICATIONS INC.

Before Moore, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The absence of explicit findings on particular DuPont factors used by the Board to assess whether there is a likelihood of confusion does not give rise to reversible error where the record demonstrates the Board has considered the factor and the corresponding arguments and evidence.

ERICSSON INC. v. TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

Before Prost, Newman, and Chen. Appeal from the Eastern District of Texas.

Summary: The issue of patent eligibility under § 101 may be preserved for appeal even if not raised for decision or mentioned in the district court’s final judgment if there is an “effective grant of summary judgment” in favor of the non-moving party.

GOLDEN v. U.S.

Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Summary: (1) Patent infringement claims against the government must be brought under 28 U.S. § 1498, not as a Fifth Amendment taking claim. (2) An IPR initiated by a government agency is not a taking if the patent owner voluntarily canceled all claims in a non-contingent motion to amend.

BOZEMAN FINANCIAL LLC V. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

Before Lourie, Dyk, and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System but are operationally distinct from, and not owned by, the federal government are “persons” for purposes of the America Invents Act.

O.F. MOSSBERG & SONS, INC. v. TIMNEY TRIGGERS, LLC
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Summary: A stay, followed by a voluntary dismissal, is not a final court decision capable of establishing the judicial imprimatur required for a litigant to emerge as the prevailing party under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

NEVRO CORPORATION v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Summary: Functional claim term directed at avoiding a side effect is sufficiently definite, despite infringement being determinable only after using the device or system.

NIKE, INC. v. ADIDAS AG
Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may sua sponte identify a patentability issue for a proposed substitute claim based on the prior art of record, but must provide notice and an opportunity for the parties to respond before issuing a final decision.

TECHNICAL CONSUMER PRODS., INC. V. LIGHTING SCIENCE GRP CORP.
Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll; Appeal from the P.T.A.B.

Summary: A term with a narrow antecedent basis in an open ended claim may allow a wider range of prior art references to anticipate.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTL. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Summary: Prior art ranges for solutions of structurally and functionally similar compounds that overlap with a claimed range can establish a prima facie case of obviousness.