A Delaware jury has awarded Wasica Finance over $31 million in patent damages against Schrader Int’l. In 2013, Wasica accused Schrader Int’l of infringing a patent entitled “Device for Monitoring and the Air-Pressure in Pneumatic Tires Fitted on Vehicle Wheels,” based on Schrader’s sales of tire pressure sensors used by numerous automobile manufacturers.

SERTA SIMMONS BEDDING, LLC V. CASPER SLEEP INC

Before Dyk, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the Southern District of New York.

Summary: A binding settlement agreement generally moots an action, even if the agreement requires future performance by the parties. 

ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY INC. v. ITRON NETWORKED SOLUTIONS INC (NOS. 2019-1059 & 2019-1060)
ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY INC. v. ITRON NETWORKED SOLUTIONS INC (NO. 2019-1061)

Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary:  Time-bar challenges to inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) may be waived if not raised before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”).

IN RE: GOOGLE LLC

Before Dyk, Wallach, and Taranto.  On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Summary:  A defendant does not have a “regular and established place of business” for the purpose of establishing venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) if it has no employee or agent regularly conducting its business in the district.

APPLE INC. v. ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

Before Dyk, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: An IPR petitioner relying on a prior-art algorithm is not required to discuss all potential permutations in its petition, and does not raise “new arguments” on reply by disclosing a different example of the same algorithm.

CHEETAH OMNI LLC v. AT&T SERVICES, INC.

Before Lourie, Bryson, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Summary: The express license of a patent includes an implied license for its continuations, including continuations of continuations, because they disclose the same inventions as the licensed patent.

HVLPO2, LLC v. OXYGEN FROG, LLC

Before Newman, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Summary: It is an abuse of discretion to permit a witness to testify as an expert on issues of noninfringement or invalidity unless that witness is qualified as an expert in the relevant art.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA v. PRISUA ENGINEERING CORP.
Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may not cancel claims on the grounds of indefiniteness in an IPR proceeding.

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. GOOGLE LLC
Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Board can institute IPR only on grounds raised in a petition. Additionally, the Board can rely on general knowledge of a skilled artisan as of the priority date in evaluating obviousness.

USAA filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits against Wells Fargo, alleging widespread infringement of USAA’s patented technologies on remote check deposits for mobile banking systems. Last November, a jury in a first case found that Wells Fargo willfully infringed some asserted patents and awarded $200 million in damages.