In October 2019, professional photographer Michele Eve Sandberg filed a complaint against musical trio Jonas Brothers (both as an entity and as individuals) for unauthorized use of photos Sandberg snapped of the band during their “Happiness Begins” tour. Sandberg registered her photos in the U.S. Copyright Office. The Jonas Brothers used Sandberg’s photos on their tour marketing websites and social media platforms, but did not obtain a license to use them. Sandberg alleges copyright infringement in her complaint, claiming the Jonas Brothers copied her work without permission and profited from it. She seeks both monetary damages and an injunction to stop the use of her photographs without her consent.
HOLOGIC, INC. v. MINERVA SURGICAL, INC.
Before Wallach, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeals from the United States District Court District of Delaware.
Summary: The doctrine of assignor estoppel precludes an assignor from challenging the validity of a patent in district court, but not at the Patent Office.
BIOGEN INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. BANNER LIFE SCIENCES LLC
Before Lourie, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Summary: If a claimed product is not the active ingredient of an FDA-approved product, or an ester or salt of that active ingredient, there is no patent term extension available under the Hatch-Waxman Act (35 U.S.C. § 156).
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
Before Dyk, Plager, and Stoll. Dyk dissenting in part. Appeal from the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: Alice step one is a threshold inquiry that can be resolved by analyzing the intrinsic record without considering the prior art.
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.
