July 20, 2015

Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending July 10, 2015

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, Case No. 2014-1301 (July 8, 2015) (precedential) (2-1) Patent No. 6,778,074

Key point(s):

  • The decision of the PTO to institute inter partes review (IPR) is not appealable.
  • Prior art submitted with respect to one claim may be applied by the PTAB against other claims from which the one claim depends.
  • “Broadest reasonable interpretation” is the claim construction standard for IPR.

SFA Systems, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Case No. 2014-1712 (July 10, 2015) (precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 6,067,525 and 7,941,341

Key point(s):

  • To receive attorney fees under §285, the prevailing party must show that the case was exceptional, either in that the losing party’s arguments were objectively baseless, or that the losing party engaged in litigation misconduct.

Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., Case No. 2014-1194 (July 9, 2015) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,553,350

Key point(s):

  • Predicate issues (i.e., whether the patent is a CBM patent) determined when the PTO determines to institute a CBM review are appealable after the final written decision.
  • “Broadest reasonable interpretation” is the claim construction standard for CBM review.
  • “Covered business method patent” is not limited to products and services of financial institutions such as banks and brokerages.
  • To be within the “technological invention” safe harbor of AIA § 18, a claim must solve a technical problem using a technical solution, not simply perform a CBM with a computer

Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co. Ltd., Case No. 2014-1807 (July 6, 2015) (precedential) 3-0 Patent No. 6,432,586

Key point(s):

  • One must make a showing that it is at least foreseeable for an infringing product to enter a state in order to establish personal jurisdiction over a seller of that product.

Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One, Case No. 2014-1506 (July 6, 2015) (precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 8,083,137, 7,603,382, and 7,260, 587

Key point(s):

  • Budgeting is ineligible subject matter as abstract under § 101 and reciting a database, user profile, and communication medium is not enough to make a claim patent-eligible.

Related Team: