ATEN INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD. v. UNICLASS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
Before Moore, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Summary: A case is not per se exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 just because (1) the cost of litigation exceeds plaintiff’s potential damages or (2) a party’s legal argument was rejected on summary judgment.
Before Prost, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Failure to petition for certiorari on the issue of invalidity triggers estoppel of parallel inter partes reexamination proceedings even if Federal Circuit remands on other non-validity issues.
HYLETE LLC v. HYBRID ATHLETICS, LLC
Before Moore, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Absent exceptional circumstances, an argument raised for the first time on appeal is waived.
Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Before Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
Summary: Method claims directed to performing conventional steps in a new order may be insufficient to render claims patent eligible under § 101.
A jury determined that Benton Energy Service Co. infringed a patent for improved drilling in offshore oil wells owned by Cajun Services Unlimited. The jury also determined that Benton breached its rental agreement for the patented tool, committed fraud on Cajun, and misappropriated Cajun’s trade secrets.
AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASS’N v. FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Before Hughes, Schall, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Summary: Aesthetic appeal is not an invalidating form of functionality for design patents; patent exhaustion and repair doctrines apply equally to utility patents and design patents.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. INFOBRIDGE PTE. LTD.
Before Newman, Schall, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A reference must be publicly accessible, not actually accessed, before the critical date to qualify as prior art.
On July 14, 2019, the USPTO published a second update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide with additional guidance about trial practice before the Board. This latest update, while lengthy, does not introduce many significant changes from established practice, but instead encapsulates decisions the Board has designated precedential or informative and other established developments since the last update. The procedures for addressing multiple challenges to a patent, however, are a new and noteworthy addition.
Before Reyna, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
Summary: A claimed method must be expressly described as a whole in order to satisfy the written description requirement.
