Golden Bridge Technology v. Apple, No. 16-1537, Courtroom 201
In this appeal arising from the N.D. Cal., the Federal Circuit is tasked with deciding whether Octane Fitness effectively overturned Shum v. Intel Corp. on the issue of awarding costs when there is more than one “prevailing party.” Golden Bridge argues that Shum established the type of “overly restrictive” framework that Octane Fitness rejected and that the district court judge should have discretion in awarding costs. Apple argues that Octane Fitness only addressed the “exceptional case” standard and is thus inapplicable.
Garmin International v. ITC, No. 16-2584, Courtroom 203
In this appeal, the Court must determine whether the ITC followed the proper procedure in modifying a previously issued exclusion order. Garmin argues that the ITC acted outside its authority because it failed to provide notice, a hearing, and an opportunity for Garmin to present its noninfringement defenses as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d). However, the ITC argues that its modification did not require a hearing because it merely clarified the existing exclusion order to account for Garmin’s new importation practices within the scope of the order.
Trading Technologies v. CQG, No. 16-1616, Courtroom 201
This appeal arises from a N.D. Ill. decision finding that claims directed to a graphical user interface tool for electronic order entry are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Trading Technologies argues that claims are directed to the structure, make-up and functionality of a tool that facilitates faster and more accurate orders. CQG argues that the claims are directed to the ineligible abstract idea of commodities trading and lack an inventive concept to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
ADA Solutions v. Engineered Plastics, No. 16-1385, Courtroom 201
In this appeal from the PTAB, ADA Solutions challenges the grounds for instituting inter partes reexamination and the obviousness determination. ADA Solutions argues that inter partes reexamination was improperly instituted because asserting the same references and raising the same arguments already considered during prosecution cannot establish a “reasonable likelihood” of invalidity. EPI argues that the Director’s decision to institute is not reviewable on appeal, and further that a “reasonable likelihood” of invalidity does not require a “new question of patentability.”
Thursday, January 12, 2017
In re Affinity Labs of Texas, No. 16-1092, 16-1173, Courtroom 402
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will revisit its decision in Special Devices, Inc. v. OEA, Inc., which held that there is no exception to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) on-sale bar for commercial sales between inventors and suppliers. The Medicines Co. argues that the Court should clarify Special Devices by holding that the on-sale bar is not triggered by an inventor-supplier transaction when it is confidential and under the inventor’s control. Hospira argues that Special Devices should be left intact, pointing to the plain language of § 102(b) and precedent to support the conclusion that it does not matter who the parties to the sale are.
Friday, January 13, 2017
HealthTrio v. Aetna, No. 16-1034, Courtroom 201
This appeal arises from a D. Col. decision holding that all the claims of a patent directed to methods and systems for generating comprehensive personal health data invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. HealthTrio argues that the claims are patent eligible as they are directed to specific methods and systems that utilize payor claims data. HealthTrio further argues that the district court erred in invalidating all of the claims of the patent after only examining a portion of the claims that it deemed to be “representative.”