<em> Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., et al. </em>
The Federal Circuit Court affirmed the District Court of New Jersey’s decision to dismiss a patent infringement case by determining the asserted patents patent-ineligible for containing abstract ideas and lacking innovation.
The Fight for CRISPR Patents
For over a decade, there has been a battle for the coveted patents relating to the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technique. Two main groups, the University of California and the Broad Institute, are litigating the rights to the patents specifically covering the editing of eukaryotic cells
Musi Inc. v. Apple Inc.: Alleged Copyright Infringement
Musi Inc. is suing Apple for removing the app from the App Store. Was Apple justified in its removal of Musi, or was Musi correctly operating within Youtube’s terms of service?
AI-Inventions, Plant Patents, and the Forever-Spinning Plum
We’ve been here before. In the 1930’s, Congress decided that plants were patentable subject matter. Since then, we’ve pushed the boundaries of what can be patentable. But now that we’re faced with AI-inventions, we have choked on the idea that an invention was created using bits and not biotics.
Senator Tillis’ Attempts to Change Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
U.S. Senate Collection
<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> 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.
A Collision of Precedents: Assessing the <em> LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC </em> Patent Case
For the first time since 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sat en banc to review a patent case. LKQ Corp v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC marks a pivotal battle over design patents and spotlights the debate surrounding existing Court precedents.
Get a Kick Out of This
Nike filed two patent infringement lawsuits on November 6, one against New Balance in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts and another against Skechers in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, concerning its Flyknit shoewear technology. Nike sued multiple other global brands such as Puma, Adidas, and Lululemon regarding this same technology in the past five years.
<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.
Industry-Specific Patent Policy
Patent scholars have long called for industry-specific patent policy; however, these policies must support cross-functional collaboration amongst different technologies to continue to foster innovation.
A Digital Marketplace for Patents: Patents as NFTs
To rid the current patent recording system of its existing transparency and validity issues, patents should be digitized as NFTs and stored on a blockchain to create a trustworthy and extensive digital marketplace.
<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>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.