Blogs, Commentary & News

Operation Technology, Inc. (ETAP) won partial summary judgment invalidating all 138 asserted patent claims in four patents, in a lawsuit filed by Power Analytics Corp. The patents are in the field of modeling electrical systems. ETAP, founded in 1986 by Dr. Farrokh Shokooh, is a technology leader in modeling, design, analysis, optimization, monitoring, control, and automation software for electrical power systems.

Hon. John A. Kronstadt, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, ruled that all asserted claims are invalid under the abstractness exclusion to patent eligibility under section 101 of the Patent Act. The claims are invalid in part because none exceeded “the abstract idea of evaluating and reacting to prediction deviations,” the Court ruled.

Klarquist attorneys Salumeh R. Loesch, Garth A. Winn, Kristin L. Cleveland, Klaus H. Hamm, Sarah E. Jelsema, and John D. Vandenberg represent ETAP in this action. Also representing ETAP are David W. Kesselman and Trevor V. Stockinger of Kesselman Brantly Stockinger LLP. Joining the motion was co-defendant Schneider Electric USA, Inc., represented by attorneys from Jenner & Block LLP.

View Judge Kronstandt’s July 13, 2017, Order and decision.

Klarquist scored a key victory for client Nautilus, Inc., fending off four IPR petitions filed by rival exercise equipment company Icon Fitness. The denied petitions attempted to challenge four Nautilus patents relating to elliptical machines. Nautilus is asserting those patents against Icon in district court litigation, alleging infringement by the NordicTrack FreeStride Trainers. Klarquist also represents Nautilus in that litigation, which commenced in May 2016 in the Western District of Washington. The four petition denials are particularly significant given that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board grants more than 70% of such petitions. Klarquist attorneys Andrew M. Mason, John D. Vandenberg, and Garth A. Winn represented Nautilus at the PTAB.

Microsoft prevailed as the petitioner over Smart Skins in an inter partes review decision involving a mobile device cover with attached peripherals. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled all six claims under review unpatentable as obvious.

The Board held that the interrelated teachings of two prior art patents, made obvious the challenged patent claims.

Microsoft was represented by Klarquist attorneys John D. Vandenberg and Todd M. Siegel.

Link to the decision.

Oregon animal nutrition company OmniGen Research and parent company Prince Agri Products prevailed on a motion for terminating sanctions due to the destruction of evidence in a suit against a former employee accused of stealing trade secrets. Klarquist argued that scientist Yongqiang Wang had misappropriated confidential information by trying to sell knock-offs of OmniGen’s feed additives in China through his businesses, Bioshen and Mirigen. The Court found for OmniGen and Prince on all liability issues, and will now proceed to determine damages.

Klarquist attorneys Klaus H. Hamm and Scott E. Davis argued on behalf of OmniGen and Prince Agri Products at the Oregon U.S. District Court. View Judge McShane’s opinion and order. The case was also the subject of an online Capital Press article, as well as a KATU news article.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a domestic corporation’s residence — for purposes of the special federal “venue” statute governing where parties may be sued for patent infringement — is only its State of incorporation. The Court had so ruled 60 years ago, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later ruled in 1990 that the earlier decision was no longer controlling. Today, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court ruled in a short opinion, in effect, that Congress had done nothing to change the Court’s 1957 interpretation of “residence” in this statute.

This ruling will be felt most strongly in the Eastern District of Texas, where approximately 40% of all patent infringement lawsuits have been filed in recent years under the Federal Circuit’s expansive view of venue in patent lawsuits.

But it will not end all uncertainty concerning “venue” in patent lawsuits. Courts now will be asked to decide disputes over the second prong of the patent venue statute:  “Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” There are many older decisions on where a company has a “regular and established place of business,” and those will be dusted off and litigated in the months and years ahead.

In the Supreme Court, Klarquist filed an amici brief on behalf of four of the country’s most prominent financial services member organizations, asking the Court to rule as it today ruled. See link to the brief.

The case is TC Heartland LLC d/b/a Heartland Food Products Group v. Kraft Food Groups Brand LLC. The four amici are American Bankers Association, The Clearing House, Financial Services Roundtable and Consumer Bankers Association. They are represented by Klaus H. Hamm and John D. Vandenberg.

Link to the decision.

Klarquist Sparkman is pleased to announce that patent agent Patrick C. Cesarano has joined the firm.

Mr. Cesarano has prepared and prosecuted patent applications related to highly technical applications focused on electrical engineering, wireless technology, and computer hardware and software. He has extensive experience advising tech companies and government entities across several different technology areas, including electrical engineering and device physics fields, computer and information systems architecture and integration, cellular and wireless technology, RF engineering, and security systems architecture. Prior to joining Klarquist, Mr. Cesarano gained more than 15 years of industrial experience in electrical engineering designing technological applications for such clients as Lockheed Martin, NASA, and Oleson Microwave.

Cesarano received his M.S. with highest honors in Electrical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology. He received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering, as well as a B.S. with distinction in Physics, from the University of Virginia.