Hooper, Kearney and Macklin on Cutting Edge Topics in the False Claims Act
Last month’s newsletter discussed Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp, where patent owner Alacritech appealed a final written decision (FWD) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for inter partes review (IPR)...more
Maybe it was the end of summer and the start of fall, or the kids (kind of) going back to school. But whatever it was, last week the Court issued only one precedential decision, in a veteran’s benefits case. All said, the...more
As we demonstrated in our own successful appeal, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) may fail when an expert declaration lacks detailed explanation. An expert’s...more
Next week is Court week. Readers may remember that, after the Court released the September calendar, we predicted that the submission trend would continue. Were we right? Sort of....more
Last week, the Court did not have many precedential decisions as Washington, D.C., COVID-19 or not, was in its usual August slowdown. Unlike the previous two weeks where we touched upon non-patent issues, we return (kind of,...more
Common Sense Prevails - B/E Aerospace, Inc. appealed a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found certain claims of B/E's aircraft lavatory-related patents obvious. B/E contended that...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/726,162 as being patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The '162 application, which...more
This week, in Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Patent and Trademark...more
Claims Directed to Selecting Fishing Hooks for Use Are Not Patentable - Christopher John Rudy, represented pro se, appealed from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") affirming the rejection of claims...more
The procedural niceties of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's implementation of the post-grant review features of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act continue to be explicated in the Federal Circuit (and of course, the...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) claim construction (and inter partes review (IPR) decision invalidating claims for obviousness) in it recent Genentech, Inc. v. Iancu decision, and also...more
Applying the US Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS framework, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding patent claims directed to data management and processing systems...more
Henny Penny petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of Frymaster’s U.S. Patent 8,497,691. The ’691 patent relates to deep fryers and describes a system for measuring the state of cooking oil degradation with a “total polar...more
PERSONAL AUDIO, LLC v. CBS CORPORATION - Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction to hear...more
The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
When patent owners appeal PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit, 67% of subsequent opinions are one-line Federal Circuit Rule 36 (“Rule 36”) summary affirmance orders, but when petitioners appeal, that number is a mere 18%. ...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
GAME AND TECH. CO., LTD. v. WARGAMING GROUP LTD. Before Dyk, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board, applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, must independently determine whether...more
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. TCL CORPORATION - Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Publications shelved in publicly accessible libraries may be publicly...more
State Sovereignty Principles Do Not Allow a State to Bring a Patent Infringement Suit in an Improper Venue - In Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific Corp., Appeal No. 2018-1700, the Federal Circuit ruled that the patent...more
Experienced PTAB practitioners know that, in an IPR, assuming each claim element is in the asserted prior art, the rubber meets the road on the reason-to-combine arguments. In Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster, LLC, the Federal...more
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more
One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...more
Reasonably Continuous Diligence Is Not Negated If an Inventor Works On Improvements or Evaluates Alternatives to the Claimed Invention - In ATI Technologies ULC v. IANCU, Appeal Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608, the Federal...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more