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: […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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
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
Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell”) owns US Patent No. 9,157,017 (the ‘017 patent) directed to fluoroalkene compounds used in refrigeration systems. The ‘017 patent recites a chain of priority dating back to 2002. During prosecution of the ‘017 patent, Honeywell filed a preliminary amendment in which all 20 original claims were replaced with 20 claims directed […]