COVID-19-related web applications have been popping up from the very start of the pandemic, and many, including Apple and others, have stepped up to contribute to the developments. The majority of COVID-related applications attempt to tackle the effort of contact tracing in order to get a better grasp on where the virus is spreading. Many of them have taken on a variety of approaches to tackle the issue – some apps are optional while others have mandated downloads. The MIT Technology Review Covid Tracing Tracker goes into an in-depth evaluation of the 25 applications it was able to identify. For example, Turkey requires all residents who have tested positive for COVID-19 to download Hayat Eve Sığar and share their data with the police, while India has become the only democracy that is making its app Aarogya Setu mandatory for millions of its people. On the other end of the spectrum are apps like Austria’s Stopp Corona and Iceland’s Rakning C-19, which are entirely voluntary to use.

MUNCHKIN, INC. V. LUV N’ CARE LTD
Before Dyk, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Central District of California.

Summary: when a litigant seeks fees for an exceptional case based on issues that were not fully adjudicated at the district court, the litigant’s fee motion must demonstrate not only that they would have succeeded, but also that the opposing party’s position was unreasonable.

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.