Klarquist News & Insights

Federal Circuit IP

Sanho v. Kaijet

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 […]

Read More

Federal Circuit IP

Backertop Licensing v. Canary Connect

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 […]

Read More

Federal Circuit IP

Broadband v. Amazon

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 […]

Read More

Federal Circuit IP

Contour v. GoPro

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 […]

Read More

Federal Circuit IP

Allergan v. Sun

Case No. 24-1061, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024) Lourie, Dyk, Reyna Facts/Background: Allergan sued Sun for patent infringement. District court decided that claim 40 of the ‘356 patent asserted against Sun is invalid under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP).  Federal Circuit reversed. Sun argued that claim 40 of the ‘356 patent is […]

Read More

Federal Circuit IP

Softview v. Apple

Case No. 23-1005, Precedential, (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024) Lourie, Bryson, Reyna Facts/Background: Ex parte reexam, inter partes reexams, and inter partes review instituted with respect to US 7,461,353. Ex parte reexam and inter partes review proceedings stayed pending resolution of inter partes review. Inter partes review invalidates 18 claims. Other proceedings resume with respect to […]

Read More

Federal Circuit IP

Core Optical Techs., LLC v. Nokia Corp

By: Aikaterina (Katina) Assimacopoulos Fed. Cir. No. 23-1001 (May 21, 2024) (Taranto, Dyke, and Mayer) Issue: Is the phrase “entirely on [one’s] own time” unambiguous in an employment contract? Holding: No. “Entirely on [one’s] own time” could reasonably be interpreted to refer to all ‘off-the-clock’ time, or only a portion of it, and, thus, interpretation […]

Read More

Federal Circuit IP

Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network LLC.

By: Aikaterina (Katina) Assimacopulous Fed Cir. No. 22-1621 (May 20, 2024) (Moore, Stoll, and Bencivengo) Issues: Does § 285 extend recovery to IPR proceedings or liability to counsel? Holding: No. § 285 entitles a petitioner neither to recover fees incurred in parallel IPR proceedings nor to hold counsel jointly and severally liable. Background: Dragon sued […]

Read More

Federal Circuit IP

LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC

By: Aikaterina (Katina) Assimacopulous Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2349 ( May 21, 2024) (en banc) Issue: Does Supreme Court precedent overrule the Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness? Holding: Yes. Obviousness requires neither (1) the primary reference be “basically the same” as the claimed design; nor (2) any secondary reference be “so related” to the primary […]

Read More