Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending April 17, 2020
In Re Gopalan, No. 2019-2070
(April 13, 2020) (nonprecedential); Patent Application Serial No. 13/926,096
O.F. Mossberg & Sons,
Inc. v. Timney Triggers, LLC,
2019-1134 (April 13, 2020) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 7,293,385
- A defendant cannot recover an
attorney fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed its patent infringement case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Stratus Networks, Inc. v.
UBTA-UBET Communications, Inc.,
2019-1251 (April 14, 2020) (precedential) (3-0); TTAB No. 91214143
- The absence of explicit
findings on particular
DuPont factors used by the Board to assess whether
there is a likelihood of confusion does not give rise to reversible error where
the record demonstrates that the Board has considered the factor and
corresponding arguments and evidence.
Ericsson Inc. v. TCL
2018-2003 (April 14, 2020) (precedential) (2-1); Patent No. 7,149,510
- The issue of patent
eligibility under § 101 may be preserved for appeal even if not raised for
decision or mentioned in the district court’s final judgment if there is an
“effective grant of summary judgment” in favor of the non-moving party.
Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. v.
2019-1435, 2019-1717 (April 17, 2020) (precedential) (2-1); Design Patent Nos.
D771,607, D775,620, and D776,648
- Summary judgment of
obviousness is not proper where there is a genuine dispute that a primary
reference might not be “basically the same” as an asserted design patent.
CardioNet, LLC v.
2019-1149 (April 17, 2020) (precedential) (2-1); U.S. Patent No. 7,941,207
- Advantages provided in a
patent’s written description may be used to show that a claimed invention is
drawn to a technological improvement and not to an abstract idea under