May 15, 2019

Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending April 19, 2019

E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC, No. 2017-2575 (April 17, 2019) (precedential) (2-1); Patent No. 8,607,926

Key point(s):

  • Claim construction of the term “100% by weight” was supported by intrinsic evidence.

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, No. 2018-1710, 2018-1711 (April 17, 2019) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 9,034,376

Key point(s):

  • “Laundry lists” do not constitute adequate written description.
  • Collateral estoppel applies to issues that have been actually litigated.

Dodocase VR, Inc. v. Merchsource, LLC, No. 2018-1724 (April 18, 2019) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 9,420,075, 9,723,117, and 9,811, 184

Key point(s):

  • A no-challenge and forum selection clause in a patent license agreement precludes filing of an IPR petition challenging the licensed patents.

Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, No. 2017-2257 (date) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 7,533,056, 7,212,999, and 7,904,374

Key point(s):

  • GUI utility patents that make the trader more efficient rather than the computer are likely invalid under § 101.
  • If the GUI specification discloses that the invention can be implemented “on any existing or future terminal or device,” then the claims do not solve a technological problem.

VersaTop Support Sys., LLC, v. Georgia Expo, Inc., No. 2018-1208 (April 19, 2019) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 9,211,027

Key point(s):

  • The statutory definition of “use in commerce” in the Lanham Act was included for purposes of Federal registration and does not apply to infringement.

U.S. Water Servs., Inc., v. Novozymes A/S, No. 2018-2075 (April 19, 2019) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 8,415,137; 8,609,399

Key point(s):

  • The possibility of a presence of a claim limitation in a prior art reference is insufficient to establish inherent anticipation.

Neology, Inc., v. ITC, No. 2018-1338 (April 19, 2019) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 8,325,044; 8,587,436

Key point(s):

  • Claim language requiring exchanges of a security key were invalid for lacking written description support because the specification only disclosed keys that are not exchanged and only disclosed where such keys are stored.

Rosetta-Wireless Corp. v. Samsung Co., Ltd., Nos. 2018-1322, 2018-1324 (April 19, 2019) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 7,149,511

Key point(s):

  • The prior art references rendered the claims obvious based on the Board’s claim construction of the claim language found explicitly within the specification and supported by drawings.

Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., No. 2018-1550 (April 19, 2019) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 6,872,183

Key point(s):

  • Daiichi factors for determining the person of ordinary skill in the art are guiding factors, and need not be analyzed on a factor-by-factor basis. It is enough to apply the principle of Daiichi and assess level of skill in the art on a holistic basis.

iRobot, Corp. v. ITC, No. 2018-1690 (April 19, 2019) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 9,486,924

Key point(s):

  • Construction of the claim term “instructions” was supported by the plain and ordinary meaning, the specification, party admissions, and the breadth of scope of claims compared to the specification

Related Team:

Josh Monaghan