Before Dyk, Clevenger, and O’Malley. Appeal from the International Trade Commission.
Summary: Past investments can satisfy the ITC’s domestic industry requirement if (1) the investments pertain to products covered by an asserted patent and (2) the complainant continues to make other investments relating to such products at the time the complaint is filed.
REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF MINN. v. LSI CORPORATION
Before Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: State sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR proceedings asserted against patents owned by or assigned to states, regardless of whether the state has asserted the patent claims in a district court litigation.
POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC v. SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS
Before Prost, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An IPR is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) if, at the time of institution, the petitioner is in privity with a party who was served with a complaint for patent infringement over a year before the petition was filed.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC
Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: If the technology is complex, a party may be required to provide more evidence of a reasonable expectation of success for obviousness.
A federal court in Wisconsin recently awarded Ultratec, Inc. and Captel, Inc. more than $5.4 million in damages, based on a patent infringement claim brought against Sorenson Communications and CaptionCalls.
The Kardashian sisters were the celebrity endorsers for a cosmetic line previously called “Khroma Beauty” that was created and marketed by Boldface.
LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS v. NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
Before O’Malley, Reyna, Chen. Appeal from the Northern District of California.
Summary: When a patent assignee does not acquire all substantial rights in a patent, Rule 19 compels courts to join a patentee as a necessary party, when feasible. Additionally, whether a party possesses all substantial rights in a patent does not implicate standing or subject matter jurisdiction.
On May 22, 2019, a bipartisan committee of the U.S. Senate and House released a draft bill on § 101 reform, in a further attempt to reduce procedural obstacles for patent applicants.
The draft bill would change the existing statutory language of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as shown here:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
An Illinois jury awarded football equipment manufacturer, Riddell, $5 million in patent damages against Kranos Corporation, doing business as Schutt Sports.
QUEST INTEGRITY USA, LLC v. COKEBUSTERS USA INC.
Before Dyk, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: An affidavit should not be dismissed as a sham where: (1) the affidavit contradicts another witness’s prior deposition testimony; or (2) where the affidavit does not simply contradict the witness’s own prior deposition testimony but instead provides a detailed explanation why the prior testimony was incorrect.
