This Federal Circuit Opinion[1] analyzes statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and examines offensive and defensive arguments related to § 103 obviousness. Continue Reading Don’t Get Lazy, Timely Complete Your Arguments
Another Example of Ineligible Software Patent Claims
Miller Mendel Inc. filed a lawsuit against the City of Anna, Texas (“the City”), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Claims 1, 5, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188 (the “’188 patent”). The ’188 patent primarily pertains to a software system designed to manage pre-employment background investigation processes. Specifically, Claim 1 exemplifies a computerized method that involves: (1) receiving data related to an applicant; (2) storing new applicant information; (3) transmitting an applicant hyperlink; (4) receiving an electronic response from the applicant; (5) determining a reference class; (6) selecting a reference set; (7) transmitting a reference hyperlink; (8) receiving an electronic response from the reference; (9) storing the electronic response from the reference; and (10) generating a recommended reference list.Continue Reading Another Example of Ineligible Software Patent Claims
Federal Circuit’s Determination on Whether Fraudulent Conduct in Obtaining Incontestable Status Warrants the Mark’s Cancellation
In Great Concepts, LLC, v. Chutter, Inc., the Federal Circuit decided on whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can cancel a trademark based on the inclusion of false statements in a declaration to obtain an incontestable status for the trademark.Continue Reading Federal Circuit’s Determination on Whether Fraudulent Conduct in Obtaining Incontestable Status Warrants the Mark’s Cancellation
Speed Kills or can at Least Provide a Motivation to Combine
In Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC, v. Brunswick Corporation No. 2022-1765, pending cite (Fed. Cir. August 24, 2023), Brunswick petitioned for an inter partes review of Volvo’s U.S. Patent No. 9,630,692 patent (“the ’692 patent”) challenging all claims as obvious. Brunswick filed its challenge on the same day as the launch of its competing product – the Bravo Four S. The ’692 patent relates to a stern-mounted motor design with forward, bow-facing propellers. It was undisputed that both Volvo and Brunswick have competing products that embody the ’692 patent.Continue Reading Speed Kills or can at Least Provide a Motivation to Combine
Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Prods., Inc. No. 2021-2316, 2021-2317, pending cite (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2023)
This case addresses requirements to correct inventorship of a patent.Continue Reading Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Prods., Inc. No. 2021-2316, 2021-2317, pending cite (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2023)
Healthier Choices Management Corp. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. No. 22-1268 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)
This case addresses pleading standards in view of contradicting factual assertions and a complaint’s disavowal of statements in an exhibit.Continue Reading Healthier Choices Management Corp. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. No. 22-1268 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)
2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March 31, 2023.Continue Reading 2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries