Much of the modern economy is driven by software development.  Companies are creating and refining new apps that run on mobile devices, and using machine learning to provide users with personalized user interfaces and content.  Consumers expect intuitive and polished interfaces.  After devoting significant energy and resources to developing software, many companies seek to protect their intellectual property.  Unfortunately, a bewildering legal gauntlet confronts them.  At the threshold of this gauntlet lies a major obstacle: is their software even “eligible” for patent protection?

Before Chief Judge Prost, Moore, and Taranto.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Summary:  An invention is not “ready for patenting” to trigger a public use bar until the invention has been tested in a variety of settings and is known to work for its intended purpose.

Before Dyk, Schall, and Reyna.  Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Summary: The USPTO is only authorized to reduce Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) for applicant delay equal to a period of time during which applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution.

Before Dyk, Taranto, and Stoll.  Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: The Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court judgment that is non-final because it does not foreclose a litigant’s ability to establish an element of its claim.

Global medical device company Boston Scientific has announced on December 27, 2018, that it exercised its option to acquire remaining shares of privately-held medical device company Millipede, Inc. upon its recent successful completion of a first-in-human clinical study.  Boston Scientific previously announced on January 24, 2018, an agreement to make a $90 million investment in Millipede.  The current press release states the prior agreement included an option for Boston Scientific to “acquire [Millipede’s] remaining shares for $325M at closing, with a $125M payment becoming available upon achievement of a commercial milestone.”

A new study based on a novel implantable weight loss device that was published in Nature, has shown that it was able to help rats shed almost 40 percent of their body weight.  This implant device developed by engineers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison could offer a promising new weapon for the battle against obesity.  More than 700 million adults and children worldwide are obese, according to a 2017 study that called the growing number and weight-related health problems a “rising pandemic.”

NAMSA, which describes itself as “the world’s only Medical Research Organization (MRO) that accelerates medical device development through integrated laboratory testing, clinical research and regulatory consulting services,” has announced the acquisition of Reimbursement Strategies, LLC.

Garmin International, Inc. recently announced a collaboration with ActiGraph to create health and activity monitoring solutions for academic research, clinical trials, and remote patient monitoring.  The collaboration will combine Garmin wearables with ActiGraph‘s CentrePoint data analytics platform to achieve these goals

A preliminary decision in the District Court of Delaware introduces the possibility that a patentee’s victory on assignor estoppel in the district court could quash a co-pending IPR proceeding at the PTAB.  Assignor estoppel is applied to prevent a patent assignor (e.g., inventor) from challenging the validity of his or her own patent.  Recently, the Federal Circuit in Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 908 F.3d 792, 793 (Fed. Cir. 2018) blessed the PTAB’s refusal to apply this doctrine, allowing inventors to pursue an IPR against his or her own patent in an IPR.  In contrast, inventors are often barred in district court cases from challenging the validity of their own patent under assignor estoppel.  Yet, recently in AgroFresh Inc. v. MirTech, Inc., CV 16-662-MN-SRF, the magistrate judge granted AgroFresh’s request to file an early motion for summary judgment asserting assignor estoppel that would prevent the PTAB from issuing a Final Written Decision, thus representing a potential end-run around the PTAB’s refusal to consider the doctrine.

Knock-offs and ‘copycat’ designs are nothing new to the fashion world. The rising demand for “fast fashion” and bargain hunting alike make knock-offs particularly attractive to the consumer’s insatiable appetite.