|
|
|
04.29.2016
|
www.mckoolsmith.com
| View in web browser
|
 |
Chrysler’s Pickup Trucks Did Not Infringe Claims to Storage Boxes That Were Not Obvious From the Outward Appearance of the Pickup
Scott Clare v. Chrysler Group LLC
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. The patent-at-issue involved the external appearance of a pickup truck
having built-in storage. Read More>>
|
Claim Limitation of “Toollessly” Was Not Met Where the Accused Device Required the Use of a Coin as the Means for Removal
Mag Aerospace Industries, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement.
The patents-in-suit involved vacuum toilets used in commercial aircraft that use “line replaceable units.” Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Claims to a Card Game are Held Unpatentable under § 101
In re: Ray Smith, Amanda Tears Smith
The claims at issue in this patent application were directed to a method of conducting a wagering game using a standard deck of cards that are shuffled and dealt. Read More>>
|
Claims to LED Lighting Were Obvious and Therefore Not Patentable
Claims to LED Lighting Were Obvious and Therefore Not Patentable
The court affirmed the PTAB’s holding in an ex parte reexamination that six claims added during reexamination were not patentable for being obvious over the prior art. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Copied Claim in an Interference Was Not Supported by the Specification and therefore Violated the Written Description Requirement
Bamberg v. Dalvey
In an interference proceeding, Bamberg copied Dalvey’s claims to invoke the interference. The
claims involved the method of transferring printed images onto dark colored textiles by ironing over a specialty transfer paper. Read More>>
|
Court Affirmed Findings that Patents Were Covered Business Method Patents and that the Claims Were Anticipated But Did not Violate the Written Description Requirement
Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.
Groupon petitioned the PTO for a Covered Business Method Review (CBM) on Blue Calypso’s patents. The PTO held that the patents were “covered business method patents,” that some of the claims were invalid as being anticipated, other claims were invalid for violating the written description requirement, and others were not invalid, because the asserted alleged prior art reference was not a “printed publication.” Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Appeal of PTO’s Decision to Institute an IPR on Some, But Not All, of the Grounds Asserted by the Petitioner
Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc.
In this IPR proceeding brought by Harmonic, the PTO instituted the IPR based on some, but not all of the grounds asserted by Harmonic. As to the grounds that the PTO did not institute the IPR, it stated that they were redundant of the grounds on which it did institute the IPR. Read More>>
|
District Court Abused its Discretion When it Dismissed An Infringement Action In Favor of Transfer to a Court in Canada
Halo Creative & Design Limited v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc.
Halo is a Hong Kong private company that owns certain U.S. design patents and copyrights on its furniture designs. Comptoir is a Canadian company that manufactures furniture outside the U.S. that it imports into the U.S. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Decision Confirming the Validity of Claims in an IPR Proceeding
Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC
In this inter partes review, the PTAB confirmed the validity of certain claims but held two other claims to be invalid. Read More>>
|
PTAB Did not Err by Refusing to Institute an IPR on Grounds that Were Redundant of Other Grounds on Which the IPR Was Instituted
Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc.
In an IPR proceeding brought by Shaw, the PTAB instituted the IPR based on certain grounds, but refused to institute the IPR on other grounds, because such grounds were “redundant” of the grounds on which the IPR was granted. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
PTAB’s Constructions in Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings Were Unreasonable and Therefore Erroneous
In Re: Samir Varma
This is an appeal from inter partes reexamination proceeding involving two patents on methods and systems for performing statistical analyses of investment data. Read More>>
|
Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement by Indirect Pointing Device is Affirmed But Indefiniteness Holding is Reversed
UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement, but reversed summary judgment that the claims were indefinite. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
The Federal Circuit Recognizes a Patent Agent – Client Privilege
In re: Queen’s University at Kingston, Parteq Research and Development Innovations
The patentee petitioned the Federal Circuit to withdraw the district court’s order compelling it to produce communications between it and its patent agent. Read More>>
|
The Filing of an ANDA to Seek Approval to Market a Generic Drug is Sufficient to Invoke Specific Personal Jurisdiction in an Infringement Lawsuit Involving the ANDA
Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Acorda owns patents on its branded drugs. Mylan seeks to manufacture and sell a generic
version of Acorda’s drug. Mylan filed an ANDA request with the FDA to sell its generic version. Read More>>
|
 |
|
