Monday, October 1, 2018

SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 17-2223, Courtroom 201

Cisco appeals from a District of Delaware decision finding that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,484,203 (“the ’203 patent”) and 6,711,615 (“the ’615 patent”) were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims of the ’203 patent and ’615 patent are directed to systems and methods to monitor an enterprise network using a plurality of network monitors in order to identify and potentially respond to intrusive behavior. Cisco argues that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of analyzing data to detect suspicious activity in a computer network, using customary computer components performing conventional functions. SSCI contends that the claims are drawn to overcoming a problem specifically arising with large-scale, enterprise networks. Specifically, SRI argues that the claims identify specific categories of network traffic data and collecting and integrating that data in a manner that allows the network to detect attacks that would not otherwise have been detectable.

Laerdal Medical Corp. v. ITC, No. 17-2445, Courtroom 201

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit has been asked to consider whether the ITC acted outside its statutory authority when it sua sponte terminated Laerdal’s trade dress claims. Laerdal filed a complaint alleging violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by eleven proposed respondents. The ITC subsequently initiated an investigation with respect to Laerdal’s trade dress infringement claims. Each of the respondents was held in default after they failed to respond, appear, or acknowledge the complaint and Notice of Investigation. The ITC thereafter terminated its investigation of Laerdal’s trade dress and copyright claims holding that they had not been pled properly.

On appeal, Laerdal argues that under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1), once an investigation has been instituted, the ITC must grant the requested remedial relief if all respondents are held in default. Laerdal argues that by re-examining the sufficiency of the complaint, that the ITC exceeded its statutory authority. The ITC argues that under § 1337(g)(1), in the event of a default, the ITC must analyze the complaint to determine what relief is warranted. The ITC further argues that Laerdal’s argument is inconsistent with the language of § 1337(g)(1) because there would be no need to analyze the complaint if the requested relief must automatically be granted upon entry of default, as Laerdal contends.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., No. 18-1276, Sitting in Chicago

Wright appeals from a District of Minnesota decision denying Wright’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Wright contends that Spineology’s litigation misconduct and baseless infringement and damages theories render this case “exceptional.” Specifically, Wright notes that Spineology’s infringement case was premised on a claim construction that was contrary to the plain language of the patent, that Spineology withheld evidence that supported Wright’s non-infringement argument, and that Spineology’s damages calculation improperly inflated lost profits and royalties. Wright argues that this conduct is “precisely” what the Supreme Court had in mind when describing an “exceptional” case in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. Spineology argues that its claim construction, infringement positions, and damages calculations were supported by the law and the facts of the case. Spineology further argues that it did not hide or ignore any relevant evidence from Wright or the district court. Thus, Spineology contends that the district court properly concluded that this was not an “exceptional” case under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

PurePredictive, Inc. v. H2O.AI, Inc., No. 17-2544, Sitting in Chicago

PurePredictive appeals from a Northern District of California decision finding the claims of the asserted patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. U.S. Patent No. 8,880,446 (“the ’446 patent”) is directed to generating improved predictive ensembles for processing predictive analytics data. The district court held that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of manipulating mathematical functions using a general purpose computer. PurePredictive argues that the district court’s high level characterization of the claims removed the core feature of the claims and described it in a manner that is untethered from the claim language. H2O.AI argues that the claims broadly attempt to monopolize the use of a basic mathematical manipulation independent of field or application.

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Mantis Communications, LLC v. Edible Arrangements, LLC, No. 18-1332, Sitting in Chicago

Mantis appeals from an Eastern District of Texas decision granting Edible Arrangements’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) finding that the asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On appeal, Mantis argues that the district court erred in applying Edible Arrangements’ proposed construction. Specifically, Mantis argues that the district court was required to either resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute or apply the construction most favorable to Mantis. Edible Arrangements argues that the district court properly adopted its construction because Mantis’ construction was not plausible in light of the intrinsic record. Edible Arrangements further argues that adopting Mantis’ proposed construction would not render the asserted patents eligible.