A Delaware jury awarded Hologic $4.2 million in lost profit patent damages and more than half a million dollars in reasonable royalty patent damages, based on Minerva Surgical’s infringement of patents related to detecting uterine perforations during uterine ablation.
On April 1, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential decision in Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland HeartLab, Inc. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC (“Cleveland Clinic II”), affirming the district court’s holding that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,575,065 (the “ ’065 patent”) and claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 9,581,597 (the “’597 patent”) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a patent-ineligible law of nature. In its decision, the Federal Circuit held that the courts are not bound by United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) guidance, and concluded that a portion of the USPTO’s guidance on subject matter eligibility was inconsistent with controlling judicial precedent.
ENDO PHARM, INC., v. ACTAVIS LLC
Before Wallach, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Regulatory guidelines addressing drug product impurities may serve as a market force in motivating a PHOSITA to modify prior art references. However, if the guidelines lack a solution overcoming the impurity issues, they cannot provide a PHOSITA with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve the claimed purity levels.
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC
Before Moore, Clevenger, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Claims directed to providing additional trading information on a prior art display, without more, are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Before Moore, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Summary: Industry skepticism is a question of fact that weighs in favor of non-obviousness and can range on a scale, with the most weight afforded to skepticism that the subject matter is technically infeasible, unworkable, or impossible.
Before Moore, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Summary: Industry skepticism is a question of fact that weighs in favor of non-obviousness and can range on a scale, with the most weight afforded to skepticism that the subject matter is technically infeasible, unworkable, or impossible.
Supreme, the popular New York-based American streetwear brand, known by its iconic logo, was created by founder/CEO James Jebbia.
On April 18, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential opinion that is making stakeholders in the patent licensing community sit up and take note. The case was Dodocase VR, Inc. v. MerchSource, LLC, holding that a boilerplate forum selection clause in a licensing agreement can prevent a validity challenge at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), even though the clause makes no mention of PTAB proceedings.
A Nebraska court upheld a jury’s reasonable royalty award of more than $14 million for infringement of Exmark’s patent relating to lawnmower baffles.
Before Newman, Linn, and Dyk. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Summary: The Trademark Act’s definition of “use in commerce” as a requirement for obtaining a federal trademark does not limit the scope of the “uses” that may constitute trademark infringement.
