PTAB Holds All Claims Unpatentable under §101 in PGR Proceeding

U.S. Patent US9691090 is directed to methods of operationalizing privacy compliance.  On October 10, 2019, PTAB held all claims of the ‘090 patent unpatentable under 35 USC §101 as directed to abstract ideas as a result of a PGR challenge.  Avepoint v. Onetrust  While it may not come as a surprise to many that claims […]

US District Court in Boston holds that Border Searches of Electronics without a Warrant Violate the 4th Amendment

Alasaad v DHS

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.

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

Tech Center 1700 PTAB Observations, October 2019

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: […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]

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

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 […]