August 11, 2015

Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending July 31, 2015

Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc, Case No. 2015-1155 (July 28, 2015) (precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 7,592,796; 7,695,766; and 7,749,566

Key point(s):

  • To overturn a jury’s verdict of non-obviousness, all underlying factual disputes are presumed resolved in favor of the verdict winner.

Petzila, Inc. v. Anser Innovation LLC, Case No. 2015-1104 (July 28, 2015) (nonprecedential) Patent No. 7,878,152

Key point(s):

  • In actions for declaratory judgment of patent noninfringement and invalidity, specific personal jurisdiction can arise from cease-and-desist communications in combination with additional activities that relate in some material way to the enforcement or defense of the patent and are purposefully directed at the forum.

Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2015-1707 (July 30, 2015) (nonprecedential) Patent Nos. 7,334,720; 8,033,458; 8,061,598; 8,118,221; 8,336,772; and 7,942,317.

Key point(s):

  • A refusal to stay district court litigation pending covered business method (CBM) review is reviewable by the Federal Circuit via interlocutory appeal.
  • The standard of review is abuse of discretion.

High Point Design LLC v. Buyer’s Direct, Inc., Case No. 2014-1464 (July 30, 2015) (nonprecedential) Patent No. D598,183

Key point(s):

  • To hold a design patent invalid as obvious, the analysis must (i) apply the ordinary designer test; (ii) include sufficient detail to its verbal description of the claimed design to evoke a visual image consonant with that design; and (iii) perform a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the prior art to determine if they create the same visual impression.
  • Infringement of design patents is judged by the same test as anticipation—whether two designs are substantially the same.

Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 2014-1612 (July 31, 2015) (nonprecedential) Patent Nos. 6,061,551; 6,266,518; 6,370,371; and 7,496,342

Key point(s):

  • The failure of a reference to disclose a claim limitation in the same words used by the patentee is not fatal to a claim of invalidity.

Pragmatus Telecom LLC v. Newegg Inc., Case No. 2014-1777 (July 31, 2015) (nonprecedential)

Key point(s):

  • To be a prevailing party, one must receive at least some relief on the merits which alters the legal relationship of the parties.

Sociedad Espanola de Electromedicina y Calidad, S.A. v. Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., Inc., Case No. 2015-1102 (July 31, 2015) (nonprecedential) Patent No. 6,642,829

Key point(s):

  • Where a claim term has more than one plain and ordinary meaning, the court looks to the specification to ascertain which definition is intended.

Related Team: