Before Prost, Dyk and Moore. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Summary: A party’s continued, but ultimately unsuccessful, pursuit of a claim construction may not warrant attorneys’ fees. In addition, district courts are not required to resolve every issue mooted by summary judgment to rule on a motion for attorneys’ fees.
Atrial fibrillation (AF), a common heart rhythm disorder, is often treated with cardiac ablation. Cardiac ablation uses RF (heating) or cryothermal (cooling) energy to scar the areas of the heart muscle that are responsible for the abnormal heart rhythm. Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), each offer RF ablation catheters. According to one analyst, however, Medtronic is the first company to launch a cryoablation device and currently has reign over the cryoablation market. Recent developments suggest competition in cryoablation is now ramping up.
Before Newman, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the PTAB.
Summary: Patent Owner Vertnetx Inc. (“Virnetx”) was collaterally estopped from arguing that a reference was not a printed publication because the Federal Circuit had already determined the reference was a printed publication in a Rule 36 judgement in a separate but related appeal.
Two high-end, off-price fashion brands are duking it out over an employee jumping ship from Century 21 Department Stores, LLC to Rue Gilt Groupe. On November 5, 2018, Century 21 sued Rue Gilt Groupe and Berenice Arcuri in New York state court. The suit is to enforce, amongst other things, Arcuri’s post-employment non-compete and confidentiality obligations to Century 21. Though the suit was filed in New York, there is no allegation what state law governs the non-compete. Resolution of this issue will have a significant impact on the case.
Before Newman, Wallach, and Stoll. Appeal from the District Court of the Northern District of Texas.
Summary: There is no generalized rule that sending letters alleging patent infringement by themselves does not create personal jurisdiction.
Before Prost, Wallach, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: A post-URAA patent that issues after but expires before a related pre-URAA patent is not a double-patenting reference against the pre-URAA patent.
Before Moore, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Obviousness-type double patenting does not invalidate an otherwise validly obtained patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156.
Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission.
Summary: After institution, the Commission cannot without opposition or appearance from respondents assert insufficient pleadings as a basis for denying relief under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1).
Abbott announced on October 19, 2018 that its HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval as a destination therapy for people living with advanced heart failure. Physicians now can offer the HeartMate 3 system to patients not eligible for a transplant. The HeartMate 3 LVAD can serve as a permanent implant, allowing patients to live with the device for the rest of their lives.
Medical devices are increasingly incorporating software and other computer elements, but software and computer patents are in the middle of a multi-year battle between different worldviews. This battle is destined to trap more and more medical device patents in a strange procedural limbo.
