June 02, 2016
Authored and Edited by Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Caroline Herald*, Tyler Latcham**, Lauren J. Dreyer
Unwired Planet v. Google, No. 15-1812, Courtroom 402
Unwired Planet appeals the PTAB’s holding that the challenged patent qualifies for CBM review and is unpatentable under the abstract ideas exception to § 101. Unwired Planet argues that the patent is not a financial patent, but instead concerns “a method of limiting access to a mobile telephone user’s location information using a specific type of subscriber profile.” It also argues that it does not claim an abstract idea but rather provides a concrete and limited solution to privacy concerns resulting from the availability of location-based services on mobile phones and wireless communication devices.
Christian Faith Fellowship v. Adidas, No. 16-1296, Courtroom 402
Christian Faith Fellowship (“CFF”) appeals the TTAB’s decision cancelling its two trademark registrations (1) for the mark ADD A ZERO and (2) for the stylized design of the phrase ADD A ZERO. The TTAB determined that CFF’s nonuse of the marks in commerce before the filing dates of CFF’s use-based applications justified cancellation. CFF argues that the sale of two hats bearing the marks to an out-of-state customer is sufficient as a “use in commerce” under the Lanham Act and that the Board should not have dismissed the sale as de minimis.
Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, No. 15-1599, Courtroom 201
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will consider whether arguably novel methods that enable a computer to synthesize a human designer’s descriptions of the operational characteristics of complex logic circuits into a netlist without requiring the designer to have detailed knowledge of the logic circuits or specify the hardware components for implementing those circuits are ineligible mental processes under § 101 because they could be performed with pencil and paper. Synopsys argues that the novelty of the method supports a finding that it is not an abstract idea and, alternatively, the novelty of the method steps provides the inventive concept to make the claims patent eligible.
Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, No. 15-1470, Courtroom 201
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will consider whether patent infringement damages based on lost profits requires apportionment to only the patented features unless the patentee satisfies the “entire market value rule.” Several amici, including HP, Netgear, Oracle America, and Safeway, argue that the Federal Circuit should require apportionment of lost profits damages and should either abolish the entire market value rule or at least confirm that the entire market value rule only applies where the patented features are the entire basis for customer demand of the final product.
The court will also consider the issues of assignor estoppel and willful infringement because the inventor assigned the patent to Mentor while under Mentor’s employ and is now an executive at Synopsys, who acquired EVE-USA, voiding the licensing agreement between Mentor and EVE-USA.
In re Zhang, No. 15-1995, Courtroom 201
This appeal asks the Federal Circuit to consider whether the written description requirement necessitates that the original disclosure provide a basis for a negative limitation in a claim. The PTO argues the written description requirement was not met in Zhang’s application, which claimed non-coated yarn, because the language “non-coated” was never set forth in the specification as originally filed.
*Caroline Herald is a Law Clerk at Finnegan
**Tyler Latcham was a Summer Associate at Finnegan
Copyright © 2016 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.