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

TQ DELTA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

Summary: Findings of fact at the PTAB must be supported by substantial evidence, and conclusory expert testimony, without supporting evidence, is not substantial evidence.

In April 2019, outdoor apparel company Patagonia, Inc. sued Anheuser-Busch, LLC in the District Court for the Central District of California. Patagonia brought eight claims against the Anheuser-Busch brand “Patagonia Brewing Co.” The claims included trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and actions to cancel several trademark registrations.

IN RE: IPR LICENSING, INC.,

Before O’Malley, Newman, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Establishing a motivation to combine two references for an obviousness determination in an IPR requires evidentiary support, and may not rely on evidence from non-instituted grounds.

Prosecution History Estoppel Bars Infringement Claim Under Doctrine of Equivalents

PHARMA TECH SOLUTIONS, INC. v. LIFESCAN, INC.
Before Moore, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Summary: Claims for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents will be barred by prosecution history estoppel where plaintiff had both: (i) amended their claims, surrendering the claim scope subsequently occupied by defendant and (ii) clearly and unambiguously disclaimed such claim scope in office action responses, in an apparent effort to achieve patentability.

GAME AND TECH. CO., LTD. v. WARGAMING GROUP LTD.

Before Dyk, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Board, applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, must independently determine whether service of a complaint was properly effectuated for purposes of the IPR time bar set forth in § 315(b) and should normally do so before institution.

KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH

Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the District of Delaware.

Summary: Claims directed to improving the functionality of one tool that is part of a system do not necessarily need to recite how that tool is applied in the overall system in order to constitute a technological improvement that is patent eligible.

COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR v. SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES
Before Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California.
Summary: An accused infringer’s use of ornamental logos can and should be considered as one factor when analyzing design patent infringement.

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.