<em> Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. </em>
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court ruling, determining that claim 11 of the ‘954 patent and claim 3 of the ‘694 patent were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and remanded for further proceedings.
<em> Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Tech. Int'l Ltd., Inc. </em>
A recent Federal Circuit decision has narrowed the public disclosure requirement for obtaining patents. The requirement now limits what qualifies as “reasonably available to the public” under the prior art requirement for obtaining a patent. A private sale was not found to meet the narrowed requirement.
<em> Tube-Mac Indus., Inc. v. Campbell </em>
The Federal Circuit Court affirmed an Eastern District Court of Virginia’s decision to mandate a correction of inventorship of U.S. Patent 9,376,049 (the “’049 patent”) which added Gary Mackay and Dan Hewson as named inventors.
<em> Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon, Inc. </em>
The Federal Circuit rejected Amazon’s cross-appeal and affirmed the district court ruling, determining that the lower court did not abuse its discretion or make a clear error on Amazon’s inequitable conduct defense.
<em> Naterra Int’l, Inc. v. Bensalem </em>
The Federal Circuit vacated the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of Naterra’s cancellation petition because the Board erred in their decisions regarding the first and third DuPont factors.
<em> AlexSam, Inc., v. MasterCard Int’l Inc. </em>
AlexSam filed a breach of contract claim against MasterCard. The District Court held that the claim was prohibited under the parties’ covenant not to sue. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded based on non-ambiguity in license agreements.
<em>Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc.</em>
In Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., Chutter challenged the validity of Great Concept’s mark, claiming “DANTANNA’S” confuses their mark “DAN TANA,” challenging incontestability, and arguing that “DANTANN’S” was obtained by a false affidavit, so Great Concept’s mark is therefore fraudulent.
<em>Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Scis. Ltd.</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trials and Appeals Board’s decision on the validity of Teleflex’s patent but refused to address whether an in vivo performance of an in vivo method is required to show actual reduction to practice.
<em>Galperti, Inc. v. Galperti S.r.l.</em>
The Federal Circuit vacated the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s dismissal of Galperti Inc.’s fraud charge against Galperti S.r.l., because Galperti Inc. did not need to establish secondary meaning or privity in demonstrating their competitors’ claim’s falsity.
<em>Actelion Pharms. LTD v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.</em>
The Federal Circuit Court issued a precedential decision vacating the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia’s claim construction order and remanded the case to consider extrinsic evidence and its impact on claim construction.
<em>Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd.</em>
The Federal Circuit ruled that the TTAB failed to properly weigh the conceptual and commercial strength of a mark by not considering third-party registrations and by placing the burden to establish non-use on the applicant.
<em>Cosmic Crusaders LLC v. Andrusiek</em>
The Federal Circuit Court ruled in favor of affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in their decision that Andrusiek had sufficient prior use of the same mark that Cosmic Crusaders had registered, thus cancelling Cosmic Crusaders’ registration
<em>Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC</em>
The Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trials and Appeals Board’s decision on Netflix’s asserted prior art reference, holding Netflix did not need to use the “magic words” field of endeavor to identify one in their asserted prior art reference.
<em>Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Baxalta’s patent for antibodies that treat Hemophilia A was invalid for lack of enablement and applied the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi to reach its determination.
<em>Bad Elf, LLC v. Flex Ltd.</em>
The Federal Circuit determined that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) erred in its likelihood of confusion analysis and remanded a case to reconsider its application of the conceptual and commercial strength DuPont Factor in light of Spireon.
<em>Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.</em>
In line with anticipation analysis for design patents, prior art may only be deemed “comparison prior art” if applied to the claimed article of manufacture. Future design patent infringement plaintiffs are now limited in their potential comparison art.
<em>Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Bumble Trading LLC</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas decision and canceled Ikorongo Technology LLC’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 251(a), which requires that a reissue patent contain no new matter.
<em>American National v. Sleep Number Corporation</em>
On November 14, 2022, the federal circuit court released a precedential opinion on an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court’s opinion affirmed and clarified the Board’s decision. The case hinged on multiple claims’ of patentability regarding Sleep Number’s mattress pressure programming and in what ways Sleep Number could amend their claims in anticipation of an inter partes review. The court held that the Board was correct in rejecting multiple unpatentability arguments from American National Manufacturing and further held that some Sleep Number claims were unpatentable.