August 2, 2017

Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending July 14, 2017

Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Nos. 2016-2430, 2016-2431, 2016-2445, 2016-2446, 2016-2447, 2016-2448, (July 12, 2017) (Non-Precedential), Patent Nos. 6,963,859,7,823,072, 8,370,956, 9,393,007 and 8,001,053

Key point(s):

  • The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant had not put on an improper following-the-prior-art defense by arguing a jury should find non-infringement if it concluded a prior art reference taught a system like the accused system and the trial court instructed the jury not to compare the accused products to the prior art.

Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v Apple Inc., Nos. 2016-1916, 2016-2007, (July 12, 2017) (Non-Precedential) Patent Nos. 6,963,859, 7,823,072, 8,370,956, 9,393,007 and 8,001,053

Key point(s):

  • Where, after a judgment is entered but claims and counterclaims remain which are not resolved by the judgment, the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss all remaining claims, in combination with the earlier judgment being entitled “Final Judgment”, give the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over the appeal.

Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLC., Nos. 2016-1543 and 2016-1545, (July 10, 2017) (Non-precedential) Patent No. 6,121,960

Key point(s):

  • In a final decision in an IPR, the PTAB must make adequate findings with an adequate evidentiary basis for those findings, and must examine the relevant evidence and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its actions, including a rational connection between the facts found and decision made.

Genband v. Metaswitch Networks Corp., No. 2017-1148 (July 10, 2017), (Precedential, 3-0) Patent Nos. 6,772,210; 6,791,971; 6,885, 658; 6,934,658; 7,995,589; 7,047,561; 7,184,427 and 7,990,984

Key point(s):

  • A showing that “a driver” of consumer decisions to purchase a product having infringing features, in the multi-consumer, multi feature context, was the infringing feature is sufficient to meet the causal nexus requirement for a permanent injunction.

Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, No. 2016-2573 (July 14, 2017) (Non Precedential) U.S. Patent 7,843,243

Key Point(s):

  • The natural reading of a claim limitation can overcome a drafting error in punctuation.
  • An articulated reasoning why references should be combined is required to support a determination of obviousness.

Related Team:

Donald Verplancken