FedCircuitBlog

• PTAB Axes 2 Uniloc Patents, Trims Another In Tech Giant Row – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board handed down three decisions invalidating Uniloc patents under the theory that the patent claims were obvious.
• U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Merck appeal in hepatitis C patent fight with Gilead – The Supreme Court declined to revive a $2.54 billion jury verdict for Merck after the Federal Circuit found that Merck’s patent claims concerning a family of compounds used to treat hepatitis C were overly broad.
• Fed. Circ. Won’t Undo PTAB Rulings On Motorola Patents – On Tuesday, in a trio of unanimous opinions, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions that upheld Motorola patents.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• Four new waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• The Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in three cases.

Here are the details.

• Federal Circuit Patent Decisions In 2020: An Empirical Review – Dan Bagatell issues his fourth review of the Federal Circuit’s patent decisions of the past year.
• Boom! You Can’t Patent an Escrow Method – The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of Boom! Payments’ claim due to a lack of patent eligibility.
• Nintendo’s Win in Wii Controller Patent Case Affirmed – Nintendo’s avoidance of a $10 million infringement award stands after the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision in iLife Technologies, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc..

Here’s the latest.

• ITC Cases Mean No Agency Patent Review for Nintendo, SK Innovation – Applying the NHK-Fintiv factors, the Patent Trial and Review Board refused to review Nintendo’s challenge to a video game controller patent.
• Supreme Court Will Review Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel – The Supreme Court granted certiorari last Friday in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc., on appeal from the Federal Circuit. The case asks the justices to resolve whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new amicus brief was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance in a case that has been granted certiorari, United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• The Court received eight new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new reply briefs were filed with the Court in the following cases: (1) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., (2) Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc., and (3) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC.
• One new amicus brief was filed in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation by Jonathan Stroud
• Three new waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in ten cases.

Here are the details.

• QuikTrip Fails to Block Competitor’s “Kitchen” Logo – The Federal Circuit determined that Weigel’s logo did not infringe QuikTrip’s “QT Kitchens” trademark.
• Supreme Court Will Decide if Turnabout Is Fair Play in Patent Law – The Supreme Court will determine whether the doctrine of assignor estoppel should continue in a recently granted case.
• Vaccine Act Claimant Gets Second Chance at Attorneys’ Fees – A woman will be able to pursue attorney’s fees despite an unsuccessful claim after the Federal Circuit ruled that her claim may not have been unreasonable.

Here’s the latest.

• Federal Circuit Statistics – 2020 Edition – Jason Rantanen analyzes the data and trends in the cases heard and decided by the Federal Circuit this year.
• Gilead “Rewriting” History To Save $2.5B IP Win, Justices Told – Idenix Pharmaceuticals implored the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reinstate the country’s largest patent verdict after the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision.
• What to Watch in 2021: IP Stakeholders Offer Predictions and Thoughts for the New Year – Several contributors shared their opinions on the state of intellectual property, the Federal Circuit, and the USPTO going forward into the new year.

Here’s the latest.

• Trademark Modernization Act Becomes Law: Establishes New Procedures to Remove Deadwood Registrations, Restores Presumption of Irreparable Harm, and Protects the Independence of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board – The Trademark Modernization Act was signed into law on Sunday as part of a COVID-19 relief and government spending bill entitled the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.”
• One vet’s GI Bill fight could win benefits for millions of other students – A final decision from the Federal Circuit is expected soon, which may have an impact on students looking to enroll in college courses in the fall of 2021.

Here’s the latest.

• The Federal Circuit Says Theaters Can’t Move IP Fight Out Of Texas – Judge Rodney Gilstrap may proceed with Cinemark’s suit against Intertrust Technologies Corp.
• Doctrine of Equivalents in Lilly v. Apotex – The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s finding of summary judgment of Apotex’s infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
• USPTO Finalizes Rules On Patent Amendments, Fee Discounts – The USPTO announced two new rules on amending patents and discounts for patent application fees.

Here’s the latest.

• CAFC Upholds District Court Finding for Netflix Invalidating Adaptive Patent Under 101 – The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that Adaptive Streaming Inc.’s patent claims were directed at an abstract idea and thus were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• 3 Key Questions As Cleveland MLB Team Mulls New Name – On Monday, Major League Baseball team the Cleveland Indians announced that it is starting the process to change its name as teams continue to face pressure to drop their “disparaging monikers.”
• Employment Law and Patent Law Collide: Federal Circuit Rules that California’s Non-Compete Restrictions Also Limit the Scope of Patent and Invention Assignment Clauses – The Federal Circuit ruled that certain employment agreement provisions requiring former employees to assign their inventions to their employer after such employment ends are not permitted in California.

Here’s the latest.