March 24, 2016

Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending March 4, 2016

Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc. No. 2015-1237, (February 29, 2016) (precedential) (2-1) Patent Nos. 5,388,101, 5,481,546, and 5,592,491

Key point(s):

  • When the parties actively dispute the meaning of a claim term, the court has not resolved the dispute by determining that the claim term has plain and ordinary meaning. 

Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Electronics C. Ltd., No. 2015-1671 (February 29, 2016) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 8,696,166

Key point(s):

  • A licensee has standing to sue alone when a licensor retains the right for itself and its affiliate to practice the patents.
  • When parties dispute a claim element to raise substantial question of validity, grant of preliminary injunction is not proper.  

Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon Inc., No. 2015-1391, 1393, 1394, and 1396-1401, (March 1, 2016) (precedential) (2-1) Patent Nos. 7,664,516, 8,155,679, 8,457,670, 8,438,055, and 8,452,646

Key point(s):

  • PTAB did not act in arbitrary or capricious fashion by instituting a CBM (covered business method) review when the claims at issue have an express financial component in the form of a subsidy, or financial inducement, that encourages consumers to participate in the distribution of advertisements, and the subsidy is central to the operation of the claimed invention.
  • A report, available via a hyperlink through a personal webpage which is not indexed through a search engine or otherwise, is not a printed publication under §102(b). 

Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology Inc., No. 2015-1072, (March 1, 2016) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 5,495,291

Key point(s):

  • The PTAB’s refusal to institute IPR reviews for reasons of redundant grounds is an institution decision not subject to appellate review. 

UltimatePointer, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., No. 2015-1297, (March 1, 2016) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 8,049,729

Key point(s):

  • Repeated description of the invention as a direct pointing device, repeated extolling of the virtues of direct pointing, and repeated criticism of indirect pointing, taken together, support a claim construction that “handheld device” means “handheld direct pointing device.”
  • A claim is not rendered invalid as indefinite by a limitation of “generating data” when the limitation reflects the capacity of a structure rather than activities of the user. 

JBLU, Inc., v. United States, No. 2015-1509, (March 2, 2016) (precedential) (3-0)

Key point(s):

  • The word “trademark” in 19 C.F.R. §134.47 unambiguously includes trademarks without a pending application.

Wallace v. IdeaVillage Products Corp. No. 2015-1077, (March 3, 2016) (non-precedential) (3-0) Patent No. D485,990

Key point(s):

  • There is no infringement of a design patent when no reasonable fact-finder would find the accused design and the claimed design to be substantially the same under two stages of the ordinary observer test. 

Let’s Go Aero, Inc. v. Cequent Performance Products, Inc., No. 2015-1308, (March 3, 2016) (non-precedential) (3-0)

Key point(s):

  • When the Federal Circuit cannot set aside the district court’s refusal to compel arbitration, the Federal circuit’s ruling on arbitrability would be an impermissible advisory ruling on the courts who have jurisdiction over the question. 

Related Team: