The FCC and HHS – two of the Federal Agencies tasked with enforcing privacy regulations in the US – have been called on the carpet for not doing so.

/in /by

On the same day.  FCC.2019.11.8. Letter re Location Privacy and HHS Ltr from Senator Warner 8NOV2019  

Read more

Tech Center 1700 PTAB Observations, October 2019

/in , /by

As due diligence for an appeal in a difficult case I have been prosecuting for a client, I looked through the decisions issued by PTAB out of Tech Center 1700 in October of 2019.  Here are some things I found interesting: The Board heard 80 appeals, and reversed the Examiner 24 times. In the reversals: […]

Read more

Things go from bad to worse for L’Oreal in their multifaceted litigation with Olaplex

/in , , , /by

In 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court of Delaware’s refusal to grant Liqwd a preliminary injunction against L’Oreal Liqwd v L’Oreal Preliminary Injunction.  Many reported earlier this summer on L’Oreal’s expensive loss to Olaplex in the District Court of Delaware.  (See, e.g., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-12/l-oreal-owes-startup-91-million-for-stealing-its-trade-secrets).  L’Oreal has now been dealt another blow by the Federal […]

Read more

Federal Circuit reverses PTAB’s holding that the preamble “travel trailer” was nothing more than an intended use, and not limiting

/in /by

David Fought and Martin Clanton (“Appellants”, In re Fought and Clanton) are the named inventors on US Patent Application No. 13/507528 directed to a “travel trailer.”  The Examiner rejected the claim 1 under 35 USC 102(b) over a reference describing a conventional truck trailer and claim 2 under 35 USC 102(b) over a reference describing […]

Read more

UK Court Holds “Consisting Essentially of” Language does not give Rise to “Objectionable Uncertainty”

/in , /by

Anan Kasei v Neo Chemicals Though the claims at issue in this UK infringement action recited properties that could be deemed to be the claimed oxide’s “essential characteristics,” it is interesting to compare this case with HZNP v. Horizon Pharma (see my recent post for further details), recently decided by the Federal Circuit. The UK […]

Read more

Federal Circuit holds that transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” renders claim indefinite, unless the “basic and novel properties” of the invention are definite

/in , /by

HZNP Medicines LLC, Horizon Pharma USA Inc., v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., HZNP v Horizon Pharma Appeal No. 2017-2149 et al, decided October 10, 2019 was an appeal from the District Court of New Jersey’s judgment of invalidity and noninfringement.  Amongst others, at issue was the District Court’s construction of the transitional phrase “consisting essentially […]

Read more

PTAB Designates Two Decisions Illustrating Bounds of Obviousness Rejections based upon “Design Choice”

/in /by

On October 15, 2019, the PTAB designated as informative two decisions illustrating the bounds of use of “design choice” by Examiners in support of an obviousness rejection. In Ex parte Spangler, Appeal No. 2018-003800 (Feb. 20, 2019) Ex-parte-Spangler, Appellants’ claimed invention related to a featherseal incorporating two longitudinal tabs that engage with a post on […]

Read more

You had me (but apparently not the Federal Circuit) at “propshaft” – Federal Circuit invalidates patent directed to driveshaft technology

/in , /by

In American Axle Manufacturing Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, case number 18-1763, AAM v Neapco the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgement from the District of Delaware finding American Axle Manufacturing’s (AAM’s) method ineligible for patent protection under 35 USC §101. AAM sued Neapco for patent infringement […]

Read more

Nike’s battle against Skechers continues – the gloves (or shoes?) come off

/in , /by

Nike has sued Skechers for infringement of 12 of Nike’s design patents.  The complaint alleges that Skechers business strategy is to knock-off the successful designs of it’s competitors, while in previously battles, Skechers has asserted that it merely “takes inspriation” from competitive products, in a process referred to internally as “Skecherizing”.2019-PATENT-Nike-v-Skechers

Read more

Work for hire agreements must be entered into before the commissioned work is created

/in /by

In very limited circumstances, a series of writings executed after creation will be effective, but the writings must confirm a prior agreement, either implicit or explicit, reached before the work was created. Kauffman v Rochester Institute of Technology

Read more