Source: https://www.lit-ip.shearman.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:50:34+00:00

Document:
On April 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Versatop Support Sys. v. Georgia Expo, Inc., —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. April 19, 2019). The CAFC ruled that the district court had incorrectly found no infringement based on the “use in commerce” requirement of the Lanham Act.
On April 1, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Cleveland Clinic Foundation et al. v. True Health Diagnostics, —F. App’x—, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2019). The CAFC ruled that the district court had correctly decided that the asserted claims are invalid as patent ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
On Monday, March 4, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming a dismissal of the plaintiff’s copyright claim. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. ____ (2019). The Supreme Court held that a copyright plaintiff may not commence a lawsuit until after the Register of Copyrights officially registers the copyright.
On February 14, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing and remanding a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting summary judgment of invalidity for lack of written description. CenTrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs., Inc., —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2019). The CAFC ruled that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether it was necessary to disclose in the patent specification particular implementation details to satisfy the written description requirement.
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019, Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the request of defendant Presidio Components, Inc., (the “Company”) to supplement its invalidity contentions. American Technical Ceramics Corp. et al. v. Presidio Components, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-6544 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019). Judge Matsumoto determined that the Company was statutorily estopped from raising invalidity grounds that it did not include in its petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and, thus barred the Company from supplementing its invalidity contentions in the subsequent district court proceeding.
On Thursday, January 24, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a decision exercising its statutorily authorized discretion to deny institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR). Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR Case No. 2018-01310 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019). The PTAB determined that instituting IPR would be an inefficient use of the PTAB’s finite resources because the petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its invalidity challenges with respect to only two of the twenty-three challenged claims as to one of the four grounds.
On Monday, January 14, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) refusing to register a design mark based on likelihood of confusion. In re Guild Mortgage Co., —F.3—, (Fed. Cir. January 14, 2019). The CAFC ruled that the TTAB failed to consider the relevant evidence and argument directed to DuPont factor 8.
On Thursday, December 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Glasswall Solutions Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd., —F.App’x—, (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2018). The CAFC ruled that the district court had correctly decided that the asserted claims are invalid as patent ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
On October 30, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion vacating an earlier decision from the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) regarding a shoe company’s (the “Company”) trademark in its All Star shoes trade dress. Converse, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. October 20, 2018). The Court held that the presumption of secondary meaning that applies to registered marks does not apply before the registration. The Court also clarified the considerations to be assessed in determining whether a mark has acquired secondary meaning.
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued the public version of an initial determination issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Clark S. Cheney. In re Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1058,—Fed. Reg.— (October 2, 2018). The ALJ applied prior art to find asserted patent claims invalid, even though the respondents may have been estopped by statute from relying on that prior art.
On October 10, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) announced that it had published its final rule changing the America Invents Act (“AIA”) trial proceeding claim-construction standard to the same standard used in district court and International Trade Commission (“ITC”) proceedings. (83 FR 51340.) As we previously reported, see Shearman & Sterling LLP, USPTO Issues Proposed Rulemaking to Adopt District-Court Claim Construction Standard for AIA Trial Proceedings, the USPTO in May 2018 proposed this change as part of its ongoing efforts to “shape and improve” AIA trial proceedings.
On October 1, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cancelling a patent in inter partes reexamination. Natural Alternatives Int’l, Inc. v. Iancu, —F.3d— (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2018). The PTAB and the CAFC both rejected the patent-owner’s argument that the patent in question was entitled to claim priority to one of the owner’s earlier patent applications.
On September 12, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a decision exercising its statutorily authorized discretion to deny institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR). NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR Case No. 2018-00752 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018). In doing so, the PTAB ruled that the IPR petition’s reliance on substantially the same arguments that the patent owner overcame during original prosecution justified a discretionary denial in this instance, as did the advanced stage of a parallel litigation involving the same parties.
On September 4, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding a patent claim invalid for indefiniteness. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al., —F.3d—(Fed. Cir. September 4, 2018). The CAFC ruled that the claim was invalid because it included a limitation that was entirely subjective and user-defined.
On August 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in which the PTAB had rejected a design patent application for indefiniteness. In re Ron Maatita, —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2018). The CAFC ruled that the PTAB had wrongly applied the indefiniteness standard in the context of a design patent claiming the design of the sole of an athletic shoe.
On July 24, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) unsealed an opinion vacating a final written decision in two inter partes reviews (“IPRs”). Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., —F.3d— (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018). The CAFC remanded the IPRs to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for further consideration of whether an RPX client was a real party-in-interest (“RPI”) to the IPRs, in which RPX had claimed to be the sole RPI.
On July 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion in an appeal from a District Court decision in a patent-infringement case, affirming the District Court’s finding of patent validity, but vacating the District Court’s award of enhanced damages of two-and-a-half times the original damages amount. Polara Eng. Inc. v. Campbell Co., Appeal Nos. 2017-1974 and 2017-2033 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2018). The CAFC found that the District Court wrongly assessed the closeness of the case, and remanded the enhanced-damages issue to the District Court for further consideration.
On June 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on the issue of whether damages suffered overseas can be recovered as remedy for infringement under the U.S. patent laws. WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U.S. ____, case no. 16-1011. The Supreme Court ruled that such damages can be recoverable.
On May 19, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied a patent owner’s request for reconsideration of a decision that the patent owner had not complied with the marking statute, and that therefore its damages in the pending infringement case would be limited, pursuant to that statute. Acantha LLC v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-C-1257 (E.D. Wis. May 19, 2018). The Court rejected the patent owner’s argument that placing a patent notice in its surgical guide constituted sufficient marking.
As part of its ongoing efforts to “shape and improve” post-grant trial proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced on May 8, 2018, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to change the AIA trial proceeding claim-construction standard to the same standard used in district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings. 83 FR 21221.
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming liability of plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation claim, but vacating the monetary damages award. Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., f/k/a Intersil Corp., Appeal Nos. 2016-2121, 2016-2208, and 2016-2235. The Court held that plaintiff Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions (“TAOS”) did not have a jury trial right on its claim for disgorgement of defendant Intersil’s profits, since disgorgement is equitable in nature and was not historically heard by law courts, at least as it concerned intellectual property claims.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.