Intellectual Property

Blogs
GC2 Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., No. 16 C 8794, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 29, 2019) (Kennelly, J.). Judge Kennelly ruled on plaintiff GC2’s motion for costs after its jury trial win on copyright infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims. Of particular note, the Court held as follows: Fees of the Clerk & Marshal The Court award the $400 filing fee. The Court also awarded $398 for service, billed at the Marhal’s rate of $65 per hour and $8 for one forward. The Court denied fees for pro hac vice admissions. Transcripts & Recordings The Court awarded…
In Re: Stepen Brian Gates, Jeremy Black Docket No. 2018-2331 MOORE, REYNA, STOLL October 16, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB appeal decision affirming the examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections reversed and remanded since the prior art did not disclose the claimed device “arranged as claimed”. Summary: Patent applicant Gates appealed PTAB decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of the claims of their ‘668 application directed to an integrated handheld device that can operate via a computer mouse or a remote control depending on the proximity of the device to a surface (e.g., a table) for anticipation and obviousness. The claims include…
Knauf Insulation, Inc. et al. v. Rockwool International A/S Docket No. 2018-1810-11, -1891 DYK, LINN, TARANTO October 15, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB inter partes reexamination obviousness determination vacated as being based on inherency. Summary: Knauf appealed PTAB’s inter partes reexamination decision finding certain claims of US 7,888,445 and 7,772,347 relating to compounds (malanoidins), compositions and methods used to produce fibrous products such as fiberglass to be invalid for obviousness. Rockwool cross-appealed the PTAB’s decision that other claims were not invalid for obviousness. PTAB found obviousness in view of a combination of three US patent references (Wallace, Worthington and Helbing).…
HZNP Medicines LLC et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Docket No. 2017-2149, -2152-53, -2202-3, -2206 PROST, NEWMAN, REYNA October 10, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings of indefiniteness, no induced infringement, and no invalidity for obviousness regarding Horizon’s OB patents for Pennsaid® affirmed. Summary: Horizon appealed DC judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of certain Orange Book (OB) patents relating to methods and compositions for treating osteoarthritis (Pennsaid®, topical 2% diclofenac sodium, “the first FDA-approved twice-daily topical diclofenac sodium formulation for the treatment of pain of osteoarthritis of the knees”), and Actavis (which filed ANDA 207238) cross-appealed the DC’s judgment of…
a80c8003beeef872192bbc24868e85de
The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) was enacted in early 2018 and will go into effect in 2020. Among many concerns about the ability of small businesses to comply with obligations imposed by the CCPA is the requirement that a company allow Californians to access the information held about them, or, in some situations, request that the information that they provided to a company be deleted.  Whether or not your practice involves regular questions of Privacy Law, your clients may be asking you about the CCPA.  By keeping data minimization objectives in mind and not over-thinking compliance…
Disclaimer – Note that the views expressed herein do not represent the views of any law firm or client, and may not even represent the views of the author. This blog is NOT legal advice and is for informational purposes only. No attorney client relationship can be formed by reading this blog or using any of the information provided. The accuracy of the information provided has not been verified.…
NeuroGrafix, et al. v. Brainlab, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-2363 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO October 7, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Grant of SJ reversed due to “genuine dispute of material fact on…whether the…software was capable of infringing uses”. Summary: NeuroGrafix (NG) appealed multidistrict litigation court (MDL) grant of summary judgment (SJ) of non-infringement of NG’s US 5,560,360 directed to neural tissue magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems to Brainlab. NG alleged user of Brainlab’s software directly infringed and that Brainlab induced direct infringement. Brainlab relied “on customer-protection provisions of settlement agreements [NG] had entered into with” Siemans, GE, and Philips”; the…
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 Brief Summary: DC holding that AAM’s “method for manufacturing” claims are patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., “the mechanism for achieving the desired result” using the “natural” Hooke’s law “are not actually claimed”). Summary: AA appealed DC grant of Neapco’s motion for summary judgment (SJ) and holding the asserted claims of US 7,774,911 directed to “[a] method for manufacturing” driveline propeller shafts (“propshafts”) in a way that “attenuate[s] at least two types of vibration transmitted through the shaft” using…
OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Apotex Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1925 (IPR2016-01284) NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 4, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB’s IPR decision holding OSI’s OB ‘221 patent obvious reversed (e.g., the PTAB “misinterpreted the asserted references”, “NSCLC treatment was highly unpredictable”). Summary: OSI appealed PTAB IPR decision holding claims 44-46 and 53 of OSI’s Orange Book (OB) patent US 6,900,221 (listed for the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitory Tarceva® (erlontinib HCl, along with one other unexpired patent; NDA 021743)) directed to methods for treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The ‘221 patent specification describes “treating” as “reversing, alleviating,…
Campbell Soup Co. et al. v. Gamon Plus, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2029, -2030 (IPR2017-00091, -00094) PROST, NEWMAN, MOORE September 26, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB’s design patent IPR decision vacated-in-part and affirmed-in-part (i.e., Lintz is a proper primary reference and Samways is not, respectively). Summary: Campbell appealed PTAB IPR¬¬ final written decision (FWD) holding that Gamon’s design patents D621,646 and D612,645 would not have been obvious in view of a US design patent (“Linz” disclosing a “display rack”) and a Great Britain patent application (“Samways” disclosing a “dispenser with ‘a serpentine delivery path’” that works using gravity). Gamon’s design patents each…
This is a cross-post written by my partner Anthony Fuga from Holland & Knight’s Section 101 Blog. I am cross-posting because Anthony’s post is about a Judge Durkin 101 opinion in FYF-JB, LLC v. Pet Factory, Inc., No. 19cv2608 (N.D. Ill.). I am also posting it because Anthony’s 101 analysis at the Section 101 Blog is top-notch. Anyone interested in the current state of 101 law should be reading it. FYF-JB sued Pet Factory for allegedly infringing a patent related to a tug toy that comprises: at least one gripping member; a central portion; and a noise maker designed…
August patent filings stayed consistent with June and July in the retail space, as opposed to the usual summer slowdown. Frequent filers included Aeritas, Consolidated Transaction Processing, Digi Portal, Display Technologies, Internet Media Interactive, Intertrust Technologies, Modern Font Applications, Landmark Technology, Sonohm Licensing, Symbology, Transaction Secure and WordLogic. As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge…
OrthoAccel Techs., Inc. v. Propel Orthodontics, LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1534 (Non-precedential) PROST, REYNA, WALLACH September 23, 2019 Brief Summary: DC denial of a preliminary injunction affirmed since Propel presented sufficient evidence to shift the burden of persuasion to OrthoAccel, and OA did not rebut the challenge. Summary: OrthoAccel (OA) appealed DC denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction (PI) after finding that an earlier related application of US 9,662,184 directed to “[a] faster method of orthodontic remodeling” lacked written description (WD) support for “1 to 20 minutes daily” in the “activating said orthodontic remodeling device for 1…
SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co. Docket No. 2018-1635 (CBM2016-00095) O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN September 25, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB determination of CBM eligibility reversed since, e.g., “SIPCO’s claims combine certain communication elements in a particular way to address a specific technical problem”. Summary: SIPCO appealed the PTAB’s covered business method (CBM) review final written decision (FWD) regarding US 8,908,842. The FC panel opinion explained that a patent does not qualify for CBM review if “the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using…
July patent filings stayed consistent with July in the retail space, as opposed to the usual summer slowdown. Frequent filers included Aeritas, AlexSam, Coding Technologies, Lupercal, Parallel Networks, Symbology, Transaction Secure, TMI Solutions, and WordLogic. As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation…
Allergan, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., Alcon Laboratories Docket No. 2018-2207 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH August 29, 2019 Brief Summary: DC grant of a preliminary injunction to Allergan affirmed since the “wherein” clauses relating to safety and efficacy were found to be limiting to the claims. Summary: Sandoz appealed DC grant of a preliminary injunction regarding Sandoz’s ANDA No. 91-087 for generic Combigan® eye drops (combination of brimonidine tartrate, timolol maleate) and Allergan’s US 9,770,453; 9,907,801; and 9,907,802 (three of 11 Orange Book-listed patents for Allergan’s NDA N021398). The DC based its decision on its determination that the “wherein” clauses…