MYMAIL, LTD. v. OOVOO, LLC Before Lourie, O’Malley and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: If the parties litigating a § 101 challenge…
ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. MUSHKIN, INC.
Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Summary: Patent infringement claims in an amended complaint may relate back to the date of an original complaint that asserted different patents if the facts underlying the original infringement claims gave notice to the defendant of the nature of the allegations in the amended complaint.
NALPROPION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC.
Before Prost, Lourie and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: A “substantially equivalent” disclosure may satisfy the written description requirement where the “equivalent disclosure” relates only to resultant parameters rather than operative claim steps.
SWAGWAY, LLC v. ITC [REVISED OPINION – PRECEDENTIAL]
Before Dyk, Mayer, and Clevenger. Appeal from the International Trade Commission.
Summary: Although the ITC must strictly comply with its rules, failure to do so may constitute harmless error. Additionally, the Federal Circuit withdrew its prior holding that ITC decisions on trademark issues do not have preclusive effect.
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC v. FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC
Before Lourie, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Summary: District courts lack the authority to declare disclaimed patent claims invalid because no case or controversy exists with respect to such claims. Additionally, a case or controversy must exist at the time a court enters judgment, and not only at the time a complaint is filed.
A decision from the Federal Circuit clarified how the USPTO should analyze evidence of fame under the fifth DuPont factor. The decision sheds light on how fashion brands can establish that their marks are famous through advertising, advertising channels, and references to the brand in popular culture.
Before Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the PTAB.
Toro petitioned for IPR of an MTD Products patent relating to lawnmowers. MTD argued the term “mechanical control assembly” was a means-plus-function term. The Board concluded the disputed phrase was primarily functional, but that a personal skilled in the art would have understood the term to denote structure based on the specification and prosecution history. Thus, the Board determined the term was not a means-plus-function term and held the challenged claims were obvious.
Acantha LLC sued Depuy Synthes Sales Inc. and DePuy Synthes Products, Inc., alleging that Depuy’s Vectra and Zero-P VA products infringe U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE 43,008. The patent relates to an orthopedic implant used for joining bone segments.
A jury found that all accused products infringed and awarded over $8.2 million in damages. Depuy moved for judgment as a matter of law that it did not infringe.
IRIDESCENT NETWORKS, INC. v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC
Before Prost, Reyna and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Iridescent sued AT&T and Ericsson for infringement of a patent relating to network communication that provides guaranteed bandwidth, while minimizing data delay and loss.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. vs. CH Cheiljedang Corp. (2018-1590, 2018-1629)
In a pair of cross-appeals from the International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s ruling that one of CJ CheilJedang Corp.’s engineered bacterial strains infringed Ajinomoto’s patent, while another strain did not infringe.
Ajinomoto’s patent claim is related to methods of cultivating E. coli bacteria that have been genetically engineered to increase their production of aromatic L-amino acids during fermentation. The claim recites, among other limitations, (1) a protein that “consists of the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2” and (2) enhancing the activity of the protein by “replacing the native promoter [for the protein] … with a more potent promoter.”
