This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and nonprecedential opinions in three related patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Intellisoft, Ltd. v. Acer America Corp. (Precedential)
Intellisoft, Ltd. (“Intellisoft”) and its president Bruce Bierman (collectively, “appellants”) sued Acer America Corporation and Acer Inc. (collectively, “Acer”) in California state court, asserting various state law claims, including misappropriation of trade secrets. After more than three years of litigation, Acer sought to plead a patent inventorship counterclaim under federal law and thereafter removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court denied Intellisoft’s motion to remand and later entered final judgment in favor of Acer.
We conclude that the district court erred by holding that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1454. We thus reverse the district court’s decision refusing to remand, vacate the district court’s judgment, and remand to the district court with instructions to remand the action to California state court.
Myco Industries, Inc. v. BlephEx, LLC (Precedential)
We have jurisdiction over this case because it arises out of allegations of patent infringement. But, in its current posture, it is a case about free speech and a district court’s authority to place prior restraints on that speech. Myco Industries, Inc. (“Myco”) believed its competitor BlephEx, LLC (“BlephEx”) engaged in unprotected speech—making false and misleading statements about Myco’s product and whether it infringed BlephEx’s patent covering such technology, U.S. Patent No. 9,039,718 (the “’718 patent”). This appeal arises from the fact that, in response to Myco’s request, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan preliminarily enjoined BlephEx’s speech. The court granted Myco’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin BlephEx from making allegations of patent infringement and also from threatening litigation against Myco’s potential customers. Myco Indus., Inc. v. BlephEx, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-10645, 2019 WL 4023789 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2019). BlephEx appeals the district court’s order.
Because we find that the court abused its discretion by entering that preliminary injunction, we reverse, vacate, and remand.
Taylor v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)
William Michael Frederick Taylor (“Mr. Taylor”) sued the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) under 35 U.S.C. § 145, challenging the Patent Office’s rejection of U.S. Application Serial No. 11/391,501 (“the ’501 application”), of which Mr. Taylor is the inventor. The district court granted summary judgment to the Patent Office, concluding that all of the ’501 application’s claims are indefinite and lack written description. We affirm on the ground that the ’501 application’s claims lack written description.
Taylor v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)
William Michael Frederick Taylor (“Mr. Taylor”) sued the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) under 35 U.S.C. § 145, challenging the Patent Office’s rejection of U.S. Application Serial No. 10/425,553 (“the ’553 application”), of which Mr. Taylor is the inventor. The district court granted summary judgment to the Patent Office, concluding that all of the ’553 application’s claims lack written description and are indefinite. We affirm on the ground that the ’553 application’s claims lack written description.
Taylor v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)
William Michael Frederick Taylor (“Mr. Taylor”) sued the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) under 35 U.S.C. § 145, challenging the Patent Office’s rejection of U.S. Application Serial No. 11/807,860 (“the ’860 application”), of which Mr. Taylor is the inventor. The district court granted summary judgment to the Patent Office, concluding that all of the ’860 application’s claims are not enabled and are indefinite. We affirm on the ground that the ’860 application’s claims lack enablement.