Bayer sued Baxalta for infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,364,520.  This patent covers a protein necessary for blood clotting that is used in Baxalta’s hemophilia A medication – Adynovate.  Earlier this year, a jury found Baxalta liable and awarded Bayer more than $155 million in damages.  This case just moved a few steps closer to final judgment.

In a case relating to systems to protect hair during bleaching treatments, Olaplex sued L’Oreal for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract.  As previously reported on this blog, after a jury trial, Olaplex won multiple awards that each exceeded $20 million, as well as a permanent injunction. 

THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. v. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO.

Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Summary: A system or method for communicating status information wirelessly is not patent eligible subject matter. A PTAB decision not to institute an IPR may be admissible at trial with a limiting jury instruction.

ARTHREX, INC. V. SMITH & NEPHEW ET AL.

Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll.  Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Summary:  The Board’s invalidity decision does not need to track the exact wording in the IPR petition so long as the Board’s characterization of the invalidity theory is consistent with the theory presented in the petition.

Earlier this year, a federal jury in Delaware found that Westinghouse Air Brake d/b/a Wabtec infringed eight patents owned by Siemens Mobility, including finding willful infringement as to two of the patents.  The asserted patents all relate to positive train control technology, which has been mandated by the Federal Railroad Administration.

Bio-Rad and the University of Chicago sued 10X Genomics for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,889,083, 8,304,193, and 8,329,407, which relate to genetic analysis tools.  The jury found all three patents valid and infringed and that Plaintiffs are entitled to $23,930,817 in damages.  

Olaplex sued L’Oreal for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 9,498,419 and 9,668,954 and asserted related breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secret claims.  The patents relate to systems to protect hair from damage during bleaching treatments.  The court granted a preliminary injunction, decided to hold the ruling in abeyance pending trial, and later granted summary judgment of infringement. 

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.