ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC.
Before Lourie, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
Summary: A narrowing claim amendment does not necessarily surrender all equivalents of the claim element if the prosecution history shows that an equivalent is merely tangentially related to the amendment.
GENETIC VETERINARY SCIENCES v. LABOKLIN GMBH & CO. KG
Before Wallach, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia.
Summary: (1) If a foreign entity is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction, but the claims against the entity arise under federal law and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process then personal jurisdiction may exist over a foreign entity in any federal court in the U.S. (2) A foreign sovereign that obtains a U.S. patent, engages in licensing the patent and/or threatens enforcement of the patent may be subject to jurisdiction of U.S. courts under the “commercial activity” exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
On July 8, 2019, NBA player Giannis Antetokounmpo filed suit in the Southern District of New York for trademark infringement and counterfeiting of his GREEK FREAK trademarks in connection with clothing bearing his likeness. Antetokounmpo plays for the Milwaukee Bucks and was recently voted the NBA’s 2019 MVP. He is a household name to basketball fans and has adopted the nickname “GREEK FREAK,” an homage to Antetokounmpo’s home country of Greece.
Before Dyk, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the ITC.
Ajinomoto filed a complaint against CJ America, Inc. with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), alleging that CJ used several strains of E-coli bacteria to make products imported into the United States that infringed its patent. The ITC determined that two of CJ’s E-coli strains infringed the asserted patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The ITC found that Ajinomoto did not surrender the equivalent during prosecution because the “tangential relation” exception applied. CJ appealed.
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: When a reference is available in the same year as the critical date, the defendant must show the reference was available before the critical date to establish the reference as prior art.
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.
