A Chicago jury previously awarded Kolcraft Enterprises more than $3 million in damages based on Artsana’s infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,376,993, related to infant play equipment.  Because the jury awarded Kolcraft almost half-a-million dollars more that Kolcraft requested, Artsana asked that Court overturn the jury verdict or order a new trial.  

BOARD OF REGENTS v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP.

Before Prost, Reyna, and Stoll.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Summary:  The patent venue statute governs actions filed by a State as State sovereignty does not apply when a State acts solely as a plaintiff in asserting patent infringement.

ALLERGAN SALES, LLC v. SANDOZ, INC.

Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Summary: A “wherein” clause can be limiting if it is material to patentability.   

BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTL. v. AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.

Before Newman, Lourie, and Reyna.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Summary:  The PTAB has the discretion to not institute inter partes review even if there is a showing of reasonable likelihood of success with respect to at least one challenged claim.  The PTAB’s institution decision is not appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).

GUANGDONG ALISON HI-TECH CO. V. ITC

Before Wallach, Hughes, and Stoll.  Appeal from United States International Trade Commission.

Summary: A term of degree is not indefinite so long as the written description provides objective boundaries.

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.