AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING, INC. v. NEAPCO HOLDINGS LLC
Before Dyk, Moore, Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Mechanical method claims involving tuning automotive propshafts to dampen vibrations were directed to natural laws and patent ineligible under § 101.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ARKEMA INC., ARKEMA FRA NCE
Before Newman, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the authority to determine when a Certificate of Correction is appropriate.
A New Jersey jury has awarded Eagle View Technology $125 million in patent damages. Eagle View originally sued its competitor Verisk and its subsidiary corporation Xactware, for infringing nine patents related to software for developing 3D models from aerial images
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY v. GAMON PLUS, INC.
Before Prost, Newman and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A proper primary reference can have slight differences in design if, in light of overall similarities, it conveys basically the same visual impression as the claimed design.
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.
Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Reyna concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part
Summary: The language “unobvious over the prior art” in the USPTO’s regulation regarding whether a patent is for a “technological invention” for the purpose of determining whether the patent qualifies for CBM review is not necessarily coextensive with the meaning of “obvious” in the context of § 103.
INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES, INC v. IANCU
Before Wallach, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Summary: If a proper reply to a final Office Action is not filed within the three-month response period, applicant delay may accrue resulting in the reduction of patent term adjustment.
INSPIRED DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. INSPIRED PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC
Before Prost, Newman, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Summary: Alleging that a contract issue implicates patent infringement may not be sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued two new guidance documents related respectively to an “abbreviated” and a “special” approach to the typical 510(K) process for medical devices.
The FDA describes the usual 510(K) process as “a premarket submission made to FDA to demonstrate that the device to be marketed is at least as safe and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device…that is not subject to premarket approval.” According to the FDA, “Each person who wants to market in the U.S., a Class I, II, and III device intended for human use, for which a Premarket Approval application (PMA) is not required, must submit a 510(k) to FDA unless the device is exempt from 510(k) requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) .”
Before: Newman, Lourie, and Dyk
Summary: Where a request for continued examination has previously been filed, the time between terminating an interference and the notice of allowance is not PTO delay for purposes of calculating patent term adjustment.
HENNY PENNY CORPORATION v. FRYMASTER LLC
Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Summary: With respect to secondary considerations of nonobviousness, nexus may be satisfied by showing that objective evidence is tied to a novel combination of known elements.
