Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., No. 16-2010, Courtroom 203
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will decide whether a party has standing to participate in an inter partes reexamination proceeding if the original requester is acquired while the reexamination was pending. Knowles argues that the Board erred in permitting the Cirrus entities to participate because neither Cirrus entity filed the reexamination request or established that it was a successor-in-interest to the original requestor. Cirrus Logic argues that the Board properly permitted it to participate because it acquired the original requester and Cirrus UK Ltd. is the same legal entity as the original requester.
Isola USA Corporation v. Taiwan Union Technology Corporation, No. 16-1674, Courtroom 203
In this case, the Federal Circuit will consider Isola USA’s cross-appeal of the district court’s finding of no willful infringement as a matter of law in light of the intervening Supreme Court decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics. Isola USA argues that willfulness under the new Halo standard requires only a showing of “subjective willfulness” and thus the court’s finding must be reversed because objective reasonableness is no longer a valid defense. Taiwan Union argues that objective willfulness is still a relevant consideration and that the district court did not abuse its discretion even under the new Halo standard.
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Front Row Technologies LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., No. 16-2604, Courtroom 203
This appeal arises from a District of New Mexico decision finding the claims of all the patents-in-suit invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Front Row argues that the district court erred in invalidating every claim in the five patents-in-suit based upon its review of only three claims that it deemed to “adequately represent” “most” of the claims. MLB Advanced argues that the district properly reviewed only a select number of representative claims because the court meticulously selected the claims and the remaining claims are not “materially distinct” from the representative claims.
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Sanofi v. Watson Laboratories Inc., No. 16-2722, Courtroom 201
This appeal arises from a District of Delaware decision in which the court found Watson liable for induced infringement. Watson argues that intent to induce infringement cannot be inferred from its label because the label includes non-infringing uses for its proposed generic product. Sanofi argues that Watson’s label describes the significant clinical benefit to the patient population disclosed and claimed in Sanofi’s patent and thus encourages administration of its generic product according to the claimed methods. Sanofi further argues that it is irrelevant that physicians could occasionally use Watson’s proposed generic product in a non-infringing manner.
Friday, September 8, 2017
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., No. 16-2520, Courtroom 201
Blue Coat appeals a Northern District of California decision finding claims directed to a method for flagging suspicious messages patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Blue Coat argues that the claimed methods require nothing more than conventional computer components and contain no inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea. Finjan argues that the claimed methods are patent eligible under § 101 because they result in tangible, real-world benefit, are rooted in computer technology, and have specific limitations that provide meaningful boundaries over conventional technology.