-
Federal Circuit Upholds Invalidation Of Photo-Tagging Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 And Alice/Mayo
10/01/2024On September 17, 2024, Judges Taranto, Chen and Cunningham of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the invalidation of a patent belonging to Angel Technologies Group, LLC and dismissed other infringement claims brought against Meta Platforms, Inc. as moot, after other patents at issue were found unpatentable in inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Angel Techs. Grp. LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2022-2100 (C.A.F.C. 2024). -
Federal Circuit Provides Clarity On Proper Obviousness-Type Double Patenting References
09/18/2024In Allergan USA, Inc. et al., v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision relating to obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) and patent-term adjustments. The Court held that a claim that is first-filed and first-issued, but later-expiring, cannot be found invalid under the ODP doctrine based on a later-filed, later-issued, but earlier-expiring reference claim that shares the same priority date with that of the challenged claim.
-
Federal Circuit Reverses § 101 Summary Judgment Of Invalidity, Holding That Describing Claims At High Level Of Abstraction And Untethered From The Claims’ Language All But Ensures That The Exceptions To § 101 Swallow The Rule
09/18/2024On September 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision finding asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In 2015, Contour IP Holding LLC (“Contour”) sued GoPro, Inc. (“GoPro”), alleging that several GoPro products infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 and 8,896,694. In 2021, Contour filed a second lawsuit against GoPro, alleging that GoPro’s new products similarly infringe the asserted patents. The asserted patents share substantially the same specification and are directed to portable, point-of-view (“POV”) video cameras.
-
Federal Circuit Holds That America Invents Act Does Not Affect On-Sale Bar To Patentability
08/20/2024
In Celanese Int’l Corp. v. ITC, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the America Invents Act (“AIA”) changed the on-sale bar such that the sale of a product made using a secret process would no longer invalidate later-sought claims on that process.
-
Federal Circuit Provides Guidance On 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B)’s Public Disclosure Exception To Prior Art
08/13/2024In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Tech. Int’l Ltd., issued July 31, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“the AIA”) public disclosure exception to prior art, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B).
-
Federal Circuit Affirms District Court Of Delaware’s Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal Holding Asserted Claims Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
04/09/2024
On April 4, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision finding asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In October 2021, AI Visualize, Inc. accused Nuance Communications, Inc. and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. of infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,701,167; 9,106,609; 9,438,667; and 10,930,397. The asserted patents share substantially the same specification and are directed to the visualization of medical scans.
-
Federal Circuit Reverses $20M Patent Infringement Award
05/09/2023
On April 18, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas holding that certain claims of three reissued U.S. patents were not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 251. Cioffi v. Google LLC, No. 2018-1049 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2023). The CAFC panel (Reyna, Bryson, and Taranto) reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and reversed the district court, concluding that the asserted claims failed to satisfy the “original patent” requirement. -
Federal Circuit Finds Disclosure Of Devices At Major Industry Event Constituted “Public Use” That Barred Patenting
02/28/2023
On February 15, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), based on the patentee’s disclosure of devices having the patented technology at an industry event. Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 2021-2246 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2023). The Court found that the patentee had allowed sophisticated industry members to scrutinize the devices closely, such that they would have understood the invention, without any obligations of confidentiality. -
District Of Delaware Determines “Translator Device” Limitations Are Subject To Means-Plus-Function Strictures And Invalidates Claims As Indefinite
09/21/2021
On September 10, 2021, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a Memorandum Opinion on claim construction. Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 20-662-RGA, slip. op. (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2021). Judge Andrews held that certain claims of the asserted patent containing “translator device…” limitations were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 because they failed to disclose corresponding structure for the claimed function.Categories : Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Invalidity, IP Litigation, Mean-Plus-Function, Section 112 -
Federal Circuit Holds “User Identification Module” Is A Means-Plus-Function Term And Invalid As Indefinite For Failing To Disclose Corresponding Structure
03/09/2021
On March 2, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing the district court’s conclusion that a claim was not invalid as indefinite. Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Am., Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2021). The CAFC held that the claim term, “user identification module,” was a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and invalid as indefinite for failure to disclose corresponding structure (here, an algorithm).
-
Northern District Of Illinois Uses Collateral Estoppel To Find Patents Invalid Based On PTAB’s Unpatentability Rulings On Similar Patents
10/20/2020
On October 8, 2020, Judge Andrea R. Wood of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied plaintiff Think Product, Inc.’s motion to reconsider a finding of patent invalidity. Think Products, Inc. v. Acco Brands Corp. and Acco Brands, USA LLC, No. 18-cv-07506 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2020). The Court had previously granted defendants Acco Brands Corporation’s and Acco Brands, USA LLC’s motion for summary judgment invalidating two patents based on collateral estoppel arising from rulings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidating for obviousness two similar patents.
-
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Finding That Claims Are Not Unpatentable As Anticipated Or Obvious
10/29/2019
On October 23, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming the finding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Koninklijke Philips N.V.’s patent claims are not unpatentable. Google LLC v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., __ Fed. Appx. __ (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2019). The CAFC ruled that the PTAB correctly found that Google failed to meet its burden of establishing that the claims were unpatentable as anticipated and that it was not an abuse of discretion for the PTAB to decline to consider Google’s untimely, backup obviousness argument.