This case addresses the application of issue preclusion in relation to the validity of three patents. In particular, this case focuses on the implications of decisions made during the dismissal of pending litigations and examines whether these decisions render judgments final, justifying the application of issue preclusion to invalidate concurrently asserted patents.Continue Reading Koss Corporation v. Bose Corporation
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
In Copan Italia S.p.A. et al. v. Puritan Medical Products Company LLC et al., the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction to handle an appeal based on arguments under the Pandemic Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (“PREP”) Act.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Lacked Jurisdiction to Address Appeal Based on Arguments Under The PREP Act
Inline Plastics Corp. (“Inline”) filed a lawsuit against Lacerta Group, LLC (“Lacerta”), alleging infringement of several patents related to tamper-resistant containers and methods of making such containers using thermoformed plastic. The district court granted Inline summary judgment of infringement on a subset of claims, but the jury found that the remaining asserted claims were not infringed and that all the asserted claims (including those already held infringed) were invalid. The parties then filed posttrial motions, including Inline’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and Lacerta’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, both of which were denied. Inline appealed on the grounds that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law of no invalidity and that an error in the jury instructions with respect to the law of obviousness requires a new trial. Lacerta cross-appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and the without prejudice dismissal of certain patent claims Inline voluntarily withdrew during trial. Continue Reading Inline for a New Trial
In the rapidly changing world of innovation and intellectual property protection, understanding the landscape of existing patents is not merely beneficial – it’s a necessity. Patent searches stand as a fundamental step in the intellectual property lifecycle, providing a critical tool for inventors, companies, and legal professionals. This article delves into the significance of conducting thorough patent searches, considerations for timing these searches, and the methodologies employed. We also will explore the benefits and drawbacks of conducting searches internally at law firms versus outsourcing to specialized search firms, aiming to spark a discussion on the strategic use of patent searches.Continue Reading Clearing the Path Forward: The Critical Role of Patent Searches
The sufficiency of evidence required to support a denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial for infringement, willful infringement, and damages.Continue Reading Slicing Through Insufficient Evidence of Infringement, Willfulness, and Damages
After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision’s position on each of the appealed issues.[1]Continue Reading Different Evidentiary Burdens in IPR Proceedings and District Court Means No Collateral Estoppel Effect on Related Patent Claims
This case addresses[1] the application of issue preclusion in scenarios where two closely related cases allege patent infringement against different versions of the same technology. Specifically, this case discusses whether a party’s waiver of a doctrine-of-equivalents theory in an initial lawsuit extends to a subsequent case involving a newer iteration of the technology previously litigated.Continue Reading Precluded, Not Repeated: WARF & Apple Continue to Shape our Understanding of Issue Preclusion in Patent Law
Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. (collectively, “Celanese”) filed a petition before the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), alleging that Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., Jinhe USA LLC (collectively “Jinhe”) and other entities violated 19 U.S.C. § 337.[1] Celanese alleged that Jinhe and other entities were importing Ace-K (an artificial sweetener) made using a process that infringed Celanese’s patents. Each of the patents asserted by Celanese had an effective filing date of September 21, 2016, and as a result are governed by the America Invents Act (“AIA”).Continue Reading Celanese v. ITC: How the On-Sale Bar Can Turn Sweet Sales into Spoiled Patents
Speck v. Bates, No. 2023-1147 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024) addressed two issues, (1) whether courts should apply a one-way test or a two-way test to determine if pre-critical claims materially differ from post-critical claims, such that an exception to the one-year time-bar on interference proceedings applies, and (2) whether Bates’ pre-critical claim language materially differed from his post-critical claim language, which dictates whether his claims were time-barred.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Test for Exception to Increasingly Rare Interference Proceedings
In Voice Tech Corp., v. Unified Patents, LLC 2022-2163 (Fed Cir. August 1, 2024), the court addresses whether failure to re-raise arguments in a request for rehearing before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) forfeits such arguments on appeal to the Federal Circuit. This case also addresses what an appellant must show to have claim construction arguments considered on the merits on appeal.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Waiver Regulations for Rehearings Before the PTAB