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.

EcoServices asserted two patents against Certified Aviation related to aircraft engine washing services.  The jury found that Certified Aviation willfully infringed and awarded $1,949,600 in reasonable royalty damages.  The Court ordered the parties to negotiate a post-trial royalty, and they agreed to $400 per wash. 

For many practitioners, it seems that change is the only certainty at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  And only five months into the year, change in 2019 has become more certain than ever.

Late last year, the PTAB revamped its standard operating procedures in a document known as Revised SOP2.  With these revisions, the PTAB created the “Precedential Opinion Panel” or “POP.”  The POP is tasked, in part, with rehearing matters of “exceptional importance” in pending trials and appeals.  By default, the POP members consist of the Director, the Commissioner for Patents, and the Chief Judge of the PTAB.

BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC

Before Wallach, Moore, and Chen.  Consolidated appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Summary: The PTAB correctly construed the claim term “treatment,” based on the challenged patent’s specification, to include both anti-cancer effects and reduction in side effects.

Nuvo Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.
Before Prost, Clevenger, and Wallach.  Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Summary: Written description is not satisfied when the claimed drug is understood to be ineffective by a person skilled in the art and the description includes only making and using the drug.

AVX CORPORATION V. PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC.

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

Summary: Appellants from an IPR decision to the Federal Circuit must have concrete claims of current or non-speculative interest in practicing the claims under the patent at issue in order to have standing to appeal.