Ingenico v. Ioengine CAFC Opinion No. 23-1367, Decided May 7, 2025; (Hughes, Dyk, Prost); (Precedential) Overview: Circumstantial evidence (e.g., emails, press releases, website) can demonstrate that publicly downloadable software was actually used and IPR estoppel covers only grounds that could have been raised in the IPR. Facts/Procedural Posture: Ingenico filed a DJ action (6/1/18) concerning PayPal’s accused […]
Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Lipa, No. 22 CIV. 1872 (KPF), 2025 WL 936536 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025) Issue: Under copyright law, is a combination of individual, non-copyrightable elements of a creative work protectable? Holding: In this case, no. There is no substantial similarity (and thus no copyright violation) because the similarity between the works concerns […]
CAFC No. 2023-1762, Decided March 6, 2025 (Lourie, Dyk, and Prost) Background: USPTO: Immunogen filed the ’809 application in 2014; rejected (indefiniteness, obviousness, and obviousness-type double patenting). PTAB: ImmunoGen appeals to PTAB, which affirms the examiner’s rejection. D. Va.: 2020-2021, ImmunoGen files suit in E.D. Va. seeking a judgment declaring entitlement to a patent. Court […]
CAFC No. 2023-2054, Decided March 4, 2025 (MOORE, SCHALL, TARANTO) Background: Restem filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claims 1–15 of Jadi Cell’s ‘176 patent. The PTAB ruled in favor of Jadi Cell, LLC, holding that Restem failed to prove unpatentability. Prior art (Majore) did not inherently anticipate the claimed stem cells. The […]
CAFC No. 2023-1217, Decided Feb. 13, 2025 (DYK, Chen, Stoll) Background: USS filed a complaint with the ITC, alleging various diamond material companies were importing and selling polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) products that infringed five USS patents, including the ‘502 patent. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found infringement but ruled the claims ineligible under § […]
CAFC Opinion No. 2023-2218, 2023-2220, 2023-2221, Decided Jan. 10, 2025 (Lourie, Prost, Reyna) Overview: Written description must be assessed based on knowledge in the art at the time of filing. Background Novartis owns the ’659 patent, which claims administering valsartan and sacubitril in combination, and covers Entresto (a valsartan-sacubitril complex), an FDA-approved drug used to […]
CAFC Nos. 2023-1501, 2023-1554, Decided Jan. 27, 2025 (Lourie, Dyk, Hughes) Overview: The PTAB has authority to review the grant of a patent, regardless of whether the patent has expired. Background Gesture owns the ’949 patent, which expired in May 2020. Apple filed a petition for IPR of the ’949 patent in June 2021. The […]
CAFC No. 2023-2346, Decided Jan. 14, 2025 (Lourie, Prost, Stark) Overview: For IPR, published patent applications are deemed prior art as of their filing date, rather than publication date. Background Lynk Labs owns the ’400 patent directed to lighting systems with various LED circuit configurations, with a priority date of February 25, 2004. Samsung filed […]
CAFC Opinion No. 2023-1502, Decided January 3, 2025 (Lourie, Taranto, Stark; Precedential) Overview: When worlds collide – statements made in a patent application can have unintended consequences on trademark protection. Facts/Background; CeramTec owns trademarks covering a pink color of ceramic hip components. Adding chromium oxide (chromia) to the ceramic material causes various color changes, including […]
CAFC Opinion No. 2022-2299, 2022-2300, Decided December 10, 2024 (Dyk, Hughes, Cunningham; Precedential) Overview: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck – The duck test applied to offers for sale. Facts/Background: Crown Packaging sued Belvac for patent infringement in WD of […]