Case No. 22-2036, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. Oct. 8, 2024) Lourie, Bryson, Stark Facts/Background: AlexSam sued Aetna for infringement of the ’608 patent. Alleged that Aetna marketed Mastercard and VISA products which infringed the ’608 relating to debit/credit card technology. AlexSam and Mastercard had previously entered into a licensing agreement for that patent authorizing Mastercard to […]
Case No. 24-1398, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. Sep. 16, 2024) Moore, Prost, Mazzant Facts/Background: Vascular Solutions sued Medtronic for patent infringement. Patent claims a cardiac catheter device with a side opening and a substantially rigid portion/segment. Some claims include the side opening as part of the substantially rigid portion/segment Other claims recite the side opening as […]
Case No. 23-2032, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. Sep. 18, 2024) Lourie, Prost, Reyna Facts/Background: Astellas sued Sandoz for patent infringement. Sandoz agreed to limit its invalidity defenses to only 35 U.S.C. 112. None of the parties brought up § 101 at all. But the district court used § 101 to find the claims invalid, sua sponte. […]
Case No. 22-2160, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024) Reyna, Cunningham, Albright Facts/Background: Crocs sued Dawgs for patent infringement. Dawgs counterclaimed for false advertising under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Crocs falsely described its “Croslite” material as “patented.” Dawgs alleges that this was an attempt to mislead customers to believe that Crocs are made […]
Case No. 23-1438, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2024) Moore, Taranto, Cecchi Facts/Background: Provisur sued Weber, alleging that Weber’s “SmartLoader” infringed the ’936 patent. Jury trial (W.D. Mo) found willful infringement. Weber moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and a new trial, but the district court denied both motions. Issues: Infringement: if […]
Case No. 23-1336, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) Dyk, Clevenger, Stoll Facts/Background: November 17 – December 8, 2016: Inventor offers to sell HyperDrive to Sanho, Sanho orders and tenders payment. No evidence HyperDrives delivered. December 13, 2016: Effective filing date of US 2018/0165053 (Kuo). April 27, 2017: Parent of US 10,572,429 filed (patent at issue). In […]
Case No. 23-2367, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2024) Prost, Hughes, Stoll Facts/Background: IP Edge and Mavexar create shell companies operated (in name) by unsophisticated individuals. IP Edge is allegedly using these shell companies as proxies for hundreds of lawsuits. LaPray is one of these individuals. This conduct comes to light when defendants and district […]
A Notice by the Patent and Trademark Office on 07/17/2024 Background: While the Alice/Mayo test for analyzing subject matter eligibility has not changed, this guidance update provides a discussion of how to evaluate AI inventions under Step 2A, Prong One and Prong Two. Three examples (Examples 47-49) are provided. Example 49 is discussed here. Claims […]
Case No. 23-1107, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2024) Dyk, Reyna, Stark Facts/Background: Broadband sued Amazon alleging patent infringement. Amazon sought summary judgment that the asserted claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. District court agreed with Amazon. Federal Circuit affirmed. Two patent families (‘026 and ‘825) at issue. The ‘026 family is […]
Case No. 22-1654, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2024) Prost, Schall, Reyna Facts/Background: Contour sued GoPro for infringing its patents directed to a point-of-view (POV) digital video camera. GoPro sought summary judgment that the asserted claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. District court agreed with GoPro. Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The […]