In Illumina v. Ariosa, 2019-1419 (Fed. Cir. March 17, 2020) (“Illumina”), the Federal Circuit held “method of preparing” life science claims patent-eligible under § 101, concluding that the claims were distinct from diagnostic claims and not “directed to” a natural phenomenon. The 2-1 panel majority reversed a Northern District of California ruling that the claims of the two related patents-at-issue were patent-ineligible. The decision may have significant doctrinal impacts.
In Myco Industries, Inc. v, BlephEx, LLC (Case No. 2019-2374, April 3, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that a patent owner has a First Amendment right to communicate with alleged infringers, unless such communications are objectively baseless and made in bad faith.
In a case decided earlier last month, the Federal Circuit addressed the always difficult issue of when patent issues raised as part of the proof of claims that otherwise sound in state law are sufficiently preponderant to justify removal. Intellisoft, Ltd. et al. v. Acer America Corporation, et al., 2020 WL 1647241 (Fed. Cir. April 3, 2020).
In a 5-4 decision published on April 27, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Georgia, et al., Petitioners v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. that copyright protection does not extend to the annotations contained in Georgia’s official annotated code. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court’s opinion, which Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined. Thomas dissented (with Alito joining and Breyer joining in part), as did Ginsberg (with Breyer joining).
Resolving a circuit split, on April 23, 2020, in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that a trademark plaintiff need not prove that the defendant acted willfully to obtain a profits award, overruling what was settled law in the Second Circuit.
In a concise, well-reasoned decision published on April 13, 2020, Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York dismissed a photographer’s claim that digital media website Mashable infringed her copyright by embedding her Instagram post on its website. See Sinclair v. Ziff Davis LLC, 18-cv-790 (KHM) (SDNY).
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