Monday August 3, 2015

Trading Technologies v. Open E Cry, No. 15-1547 – Courtroom 201

This case provides another opportunity for the Federal Circuit to expand its precedent applying the four-factor test for motions to stay pending CBM review. The district court denied a stay when, as Trading Technologies argues, only a subset of the 16 asserted patents were subject to CBM and many of the defendants had not agreed to be bound by the statutory estoppel that applies to the petitioner.

Tuesday August 4, 2015

ClearCorrect Operating v. ITC, No. 14-1527; Align Technology v. ITC, No. 14-1533 – Courtroom 201

In a closely watched case, the Federal Circuit will determine whether digital data (used to create 3D models for Invisalign® braces) constitutes an “article” within the meaning of Section 337 or whether Section 337 only applies to physical items. The ITC found ClearCorrect liable for infringement by downloading the 3D models. So the Federal Circuit will also decide whether “importation” in Section 337 gives the ITC authority over the international transmission of digital files. Many amici have filed briefs in this case.

Thursday August 6, 2015

Prolitec v. ScentAir Technologies, No. 15-1020 – Courtroom 402

In another appeal involving motions to amend at the PTAB, Prolitec argues that the PTAB abused its discretion by denying its motion to amend. It also claims that the PTAB failed to analyze the substitute claim as a whole, and that its regulations governing amendments are arbitrary. ScentAir counters that the amendment was taught by the prior art. The PTAB has intervened in this case.