Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending June 19, 2020
Paltalk Holdings, Inc. v. Riot Games, Inc., Case
Nos. 2019-2035, -2036, -2037, -2038, (June
16, 2020), (Non-Precedential), Patent Nos. 5,822,523; and
- The Federal Circuit may affirm a PTAB ruling when there is
a reviewable pathway to the
PTAB’s conclusion that reasonably takes both sides’
arguments into consideration and
cites support from the prior art.
In re Apple, Inc., Case Nos. 2020-127, (June 16,
2020), (Non-Precedential), U.S. Patent Nos.
8,249,204; 8,565,326; and 8,265,096
- Absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion, the
Federal Circuit will not grant a writ
of mandamus to compel a district court to grant a motion to
transfer venue, regardless of
whether other district courts have granted movant’s similar
motions in other cases.
LiquidPower Specialty Products Inc. v. Baker Hughes,
Case Nos. 2019-1838, -1839, -1840,
(June 17, 2020), (Non-Precedential), U.S. Patent Nos.
8,426,498; 8,450,249; and 8,450,250
- Before the PTAB makes a finding of obviousness, it must
first consider the secondary
evidence offered by the patentee.
PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Amazon, No.
2019-1918, (Jun 17, 2020), (Precedential),
(3-0), Patent Nos. 5,978,791; 6,928,442; 7,802,310;
7,945,544 and 8,099,420
- Kessler preclusion is triggered even in cases
voluntarily dismissed (with prejudice) by the
patentee and is operable to block actions against subsequent
allegations of infringement
against the original defendant and its customers.
- Kessler preclusion bars all claims that were
brought or “could have been brought” in a
In re Seattle SpinCo, Inc., Case No. 2020-123,
(June 18, 2020), (Non-Precedential), U.S.
Patent Nos. 9,971,678, 9,298,864 and 8,924,192
- The Federal Circuit declined to adopt the rule that the
“first-filed status” is determined by
which court first secures personal jurisdiction over the
Dropbox Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.,
No. 2019-1765, 2019-1767, 2019-1823, (Jun
19, 2020), (Non-Precedential), Patent Nos. 6,178,505;
6,058,399 and 7,567,541
- A broad description of a more economically secure way to
perform a method, such as
transmit data, (i.e., “an advance”) that is not specifically
tied to the claims is not enough
to constitute an inventive concept under Step 2 of Alice.