The USPTO’s Patent Trial Practice Guide (“Practice Guide”) states that, during an AIA trial proceeding, a petitioner may file a reply to a patent owner’s response. (See Practice Guide, Section II(I).) But the Practice Guide puts limits on what the petitioner may argue in its reply.
Does California’s litigation privilege protect false reporting to Amazon of counterfeiting allegations that led to the removal of a competing seller from the Amazon.com platform? Does the litigation privilege apply even if the reports were malicious, intentional, and made in bad faith? In a recent decision in TP Link USA Corp. v. Careful Shopper LLC et al., 8:19-cv-0082 (C.D.C.A.), U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton answered “yes.”
In 2014, the Supreme Court strengthened the requirement for patent claims to be definite. It held that claims, interpreted in light of the specification and prosecution history, must “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). Last week, in Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, 2020 WL 1802794 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit clarified the outer boundaries of that requirement.
Last September in In Re: Application To Obtain Discovery For Use In Foreign Proceedings, Abdul Latif Jameel Transp. Co. v. FedEx Corp., et al, 939 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2019), the Sixth Circuit became the first U.S. Court of Appeals to decide that Section 28 U.S.C. § 1782 enables parties to seek assistance with discovery for use in a private commercial arbitration
Headlines emphasized the $6.75 million dollar damages award in the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Castillo v. G&M Realty LP. However, the primary significance of the case is that it establishes a test that is highly deferential to experts for when a work of visual art has achieved “recognized stature” — and thus merits protection from destruction under the Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA,” 17 U.S.C. § 106A).
In a unanimous decision issued on March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court held that Congress’ attempt to strip states of their sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits “lacked a valid constitutional basis.” (Slip Op. at 1.) Justice Kagan’s opinion in Allen v. Cooper, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), follows closely the Court’s prior decision in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. V. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999). That case held that Congress’ parallel attempt to abrogate sovereign immunity in the patent context was also unconstitutional.
In American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., v. Neapco Holdings, LLC (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2019), a split Federal Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment holding claims from plaintiff’s patent ineligible under § 101. Even among the many post-Alice Federal Circuit decisions that have fractured the court, American Axle stands out for several reasons. Some background on the technology at issue helps to illustrate why.
In Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions, Inc. (Fed. Cir. September 12, 2019), the Federal Circuit held that claim language can limit the scope of a design patent to a specific article of manufacture even where the patent’s drawing figures never depict that article. In doing so, the court rejected the patentee Curver’s argument that patent coverage should be defined solely by the patent drawing figures, which showed an ornamental surface design disembodied from any article of manufacture. After limiting the design patent’s scope to the article of manufacture mentioned in the claim, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that dismissed Curver’s infringement claim.