Before Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes. On remand from the Supreme Court.
Summary: Even though the issue of the jury’s award of lost profits was still pending, a party could not reopen the issue of a reasonable royalty award based on the subsequent invalidation of a subset of asserted patent claims because the reasonable royalty award was the subject of a stipulation of final judgment resolving all issues except for lost profits. When a lost profits award is based on multiple infringed claims and some of the claims are later found invalid, a new trial on lost profits may not necessarily be required if there is evidence that the technology covered by a remaining claim was required to perform the infringing activities.
Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A generic pharmaceutical company had standing to appeal the Board’s decision in an IPR that claims of a patent were not obvious even though it may be incapable of maintaining a parallel Hatch-Waxman suit because it demonstrated a controversy traceable to the patent and redressable by the Court.
Before Dyk, Taranto, Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The PTAB is not required to make any finding regarding a motivation to combine two references when it concludes that a claim is invalid under § 103 in view of a single prior art reference.
On January 4th, the USPTO announced revised guidance for subject matter eligibility (Section 101 Revised Guidance) and stated it would take effect when published on Monday, January 7, 2019.
On Monday, January 7, 2019, a revised guidance for subject matter eligibility (USPTO Section 101 Revised Guidance) will take effect at the USPTO. With the newly revised guidance, the USPTO aims to clarify and standardize the patent eligibility analysis under the Alice/Mayo framework.
Before Chen, Mayer, and Bryson. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Claims directed to the abstract idea of rules for playing a dice game are not transformed into patent eligible subject matter by the addition of printed matter.
On November 9, 2018, Cook Medical LLC filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board requesting inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,306,141, assigned to Medtronic Vascular, Inc. The ‘141 Patent is entitled “Medical Devices Incorporating SIM Alloy Elements.” The ‘141 Patent states that it relates to “a medical device containing a shape memory alloy element.”
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.
