February 2, 2018
Authored and Edited by Anthony J. Berlenbach; Lillian R. Phares; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Monday, February 5, 2018
Blue Spike, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., No. 16-1075, Courtroom 201
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit has been asked to decide whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Adobe’s request for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Blue Spike argues that the district court failed to apply the Octane Fitness totality of the circumstances standard and instead applied the “overly rigid” Brooks Furniture objective baselessness standard by focusing solely on affirmative proof of non-infringement. Adobe argues that under the Octane Fitness standard, the district court is free to make discretionary a judgment based on the totality-of-the-circumstances in determining whether a case is “exceptional.” Adobe argues that fee awards are not intended to be a penalty for losing, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that this was not an “exceptional” case.
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
James v. j2 Cloud Services, LLC, No. 17-1506, Courtroom 203
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will address whether the hired-to-invent doctrine can divest an inventor of legal title, and therefore, the requisite ownership to maintain an action under 35 U.S.C. § 256. James argues that only equitable title was conveyed under the hired-to-invent doctrine, and that he was not divested of his legal title to the patent. Thus, James argues that his legal title conveys the requisite standing to maintain a suit for monetary damages. j2 Cloud Services argues that under James’ contractual arrangement and the hired-to-invent doctrine, he lacks an ownership or financial interest in the patent, and therefore, lacks Article III standing to bring a § 256 correction-of-inventorship claim.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
In re Burgos, No. 17-1714, Courtroom 402
This appeal arises from a PTAB decision holding that the claims of Burgos’ application are patent ineligible under § 101 because they are directed to natural phenomena or laws of nature. The claims are directed to extracts comprising anthocyanins and anthocyanidins, wherein at least 35% of the composition, by weight of certain pigments. Burgos argues that no known plant has anything remotely near 35% by weight of these pigments; therefore, the composition is made by man, not nature. Burgos further argues that the claimed composition reduces hyperglycemia, thus it provides a benefit not obtainable form any known fruit. The PTO argues that anthocyanins and anthocyanidins are naturally-occurring and combining them in particular concentrations does not render the claims patent eligible. The PTO further argues that the specification provides no evidence to show that the claimed combinations have markedly different characteristics from those pigments individually or in combination in nature.
Thursday, February 8, 2018
Schlafly v. The Saint Louis Brewery, LLC, No. 17-1468, Courtroom 201
This appeal arises from a decision by the TTAB finding Saint Louis Brewery’s SCHLAFLY mark had acquired distinctiveness for its beer under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act. Appellants Bruce S. Schlafly and Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Trust (“Schlafly”) argue that trademark registration in a surname is proper only upon proofs of a change in “significance to the public” of the recognition of the applied-for mark, from being known as a surname to becoming known as a mark for goods. Schlafly further argues that evidence of self-promotion and public relations efforts alone are insufficient to establish the necessary shift in public perception. The Saint Louis Brewery argues that its evidence of the length of continuous exclusive use, sales, revenue, advertising, awards, and third-party recognition all demonstrate the public’s perception and association of the term SCHLAFLY with Saint Louis Brewery’s beer.
01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc., No. 17-1869, Courtroom 201
Communique appeals a Northern District of Ohio jury decision in which the jury held that Citrix did not infringe Communique’s patent. Citrix argued that its accused service, GoToMyPC, was exactly the same as an older service it had offered, BuddyHelp, and therefore, either BuddyHelp invalidated the ’479 patent or GoToMyPC did not infringe. Communique argues that Citrix presented an improper “practicing-the-prior-art defense,” and did not compare the prior art against the claims of the asserted patent. Communique argues that proof that the prior art is identical to the accused product does not constitute clear and convincing evidence of invalidity. Citrix argues that its invalidity theory was rooted in a limitation-by-limitation comparison of the prior art to the claims of the asserted patent. Citrix further argues that it never compared GoToMyPC to the prior art as part of its noninfringement defense, but rather argued that GoToMyPC did not practice key claim elements.
Friday, February 16, 2018
Cave Consulting Group, LLC v. OptumInsight, Inc., No. 17-1060, Courtroom 201
This appeal addresses the issue of whether a prior sale by the patent owner, Cave Consulting, triggers the § 102(b) on-sale bar defense. OptumInsight appeals a decision from the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of no invalidity finding that the § 102(b) defense did not apply. OptumInsight argues that the prior sale was public, as evidenced by Cave’s press releases announcing sales and a publicly-available website targeting customers and potential customers. Cave Consulting argues that its Impact Analysis methodology, which constitutes the inventive method, was practiced internally and only the outputs were made available to customers. Therefore, Cave Consulting argues that the prior sales fall into the “third-party-secret-method” exception to the § 102(b) on-sale bar. OptumInsight counters that there is no “confidentiality distinction” to the § 102(b) on-sale bar, and thus, the district court erred in holding that the on-sale bar was inapplicable due to the confidentiality provisions in the license agreements. Cave Consulting responds that OptumInsight’s argument is flawed because its contracts contained confidentiality provisions to maintain the secrecy of the Impact Analysis methodology.
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Winning the Battle but Not the War: Disclaimer Requirement Overturned, Section 2(d) Objection Upheld
March 28, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
The Federal Circuit’s Heartfelt Affirmation of Everybody’s Right to Use “Everybody vs. Racism”
March 22, 2024
Conference
2nd Annual Forum on IP, Funding and Tech Strategies for Novel Therapeutic Modalities
March 20, 2024
Boston
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.