AIRBUS S.A.S. v. FIREPASS CORPORATION

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

Summary: Whether an asserted prior art reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem solved by the invention, and thus analogous art, must account for the knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. TCL CORPORATION

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Publications shelved in publicly accessible libraries may be publicly available prior art references as of the date of shelving

Wearable fitness products company Fitbit Inc. announced Friday it entered a definitive agreement to be acquired by Alphabet Inc.-owned Google for $7.35 per share in cash, valuing the company at approximately $2.1 billion. James Park, co-founder and CEO of Fitbit, said of the deal: “Google is an ideal partner to advance our mission. With Google’s resources and global platform, Fitbit will be able to accelerate innovation in the wearables category, scale faster, and make health even more accessible to everyone.” The deal is expected to close in 2020.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows for a trademark application to be filed on an “Intent to Use” basis to establish a priority date before the mark is actually “used in commerce.” However, such use in commerce must happen before the trademark application will register with the USPTO. If your company markets pharmaceutical cosmetics, beauty devices, or other fashion related goods or services that require regulatory approval, the use in commerce requirement presents unique issues.

CUSTOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. DISH NETWORK CORPORATION

Per Curiam Orders. Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Arthrex finding that Administrative Patent Judges’ (APJs) appointments violated the Appointments Clause is not a basis to vacate and remand a Patent Trial and Appeal (PTAB) decision, unless the party raised an Appointments Clause challenge in the opening brief or preceding motions.

IN RE: DAVID FOUGHT, MARTIN CLANTON Before Newman, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A preamble description of the invention as a “travel trailer” was…

IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC v. GILEAD SCIENCES INC.

Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: Synthesizing and screening tens of thousands of compounds to identify those within the scope of the claims was undue experimentation that rendered claims invalid for lack of enablement.

LIQWD, INC. v. L’OREAL USA, INC.

Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Evidence of copying was relevant to nonobviousness even though the copied feature came from an unpublished patent application rather than a product.

The USPTO has released updated subject matter eligibility guidance that incorporates comments on the changes made in January 2019.  The guidance is 22 pages long, with three appendices and 87 footnotes.  Below are a few of the more salient…

FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.

Before Dyk, Linn, and Taranto. Appeal from the District of Delaware.

Summary: Contract interpretation must be applied in determining whether a sublicense survives termination of the main license.