Intellectual Property Law News - Federal Circuit
Federal Circuit - The FindLaw Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Intellectual Property Law Category

If you've gotten a paternity test or fetal DNA test in the last twenty years, you have probably benefited from the discovery of cell-free fetal DNA, or cffDNA. This DNA is non-cellular bits of DNA floating freely in the blood stream of a pregnant woman, which can be extracted from maternal plasma and serum and tested for paternity and other genetic information.

After cffDNA was discovered, a method of detecting and interpreting it was commercialized by Sequenom and patented by Drs. Dennis Lo and James Wainscoat. Paternity and genetic tests based on cffDNA are significantly less invasive than other forms of testing. Unfortunately for Sequenom, however, those methods are also unpatentable, the Federal Circuit ruled last week.

Apple Verdict Against Samsung Mostly Upheld by Fed. Cir.

Back in 2012, a federal jury awarded Apple a staggering one billion dollars after finding that rival smartphone maker Samsung infringed Apple's design and utility patents, as well as Apple's trade dress.

Samsung appealed to the Federal Circuit, which yesterday handed Samsung a mixed bag. Everything but the trade dress claims could stand, the court said, setting the stage for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fed. Cir. Invalidates Live TV Patent for Indefiniteness

In September 1997, the patent office issued Patent No. 5,663,757, which allows software to add interactive elements to a live television broadcast; for example, by allowing "impulse purchase transactions with immediate payment." So, basically, you can buy what you see on TV.

In 1997, there was no such thing as a smartphone. But the current holder of that patent, EON Corp. IP Holdings, claimed that watching live TV on a smartphone is the "modern iteration of that patent." And so, they sued AT&T, Sprint, Qualcomm, and so on.

Fed. Cir. Will Rehear Lexmark Ink Cartridge Case En Banc

Well, that's interesting. Yesterday, the Federal Circuit sua sponte ordered an en banc hearing in Lexmark International v. Impression Products, Inc. A three-judge panel just heard oral arguments on March 6, but that apparently wasn't sufficient for the Federal Circuit.

According to the order, the parties must resubmit new briefs and address the applicability of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons and patent exhaustion in the face of a single-use-and-return restriction. This case is actually pretty huge.

Fed. Cir. Affirms, Reverses Claims in MobileMedia Suit Against Apple

Another day, another patent infringement suit with Apple on the other side of the "v." This time, the plaintiff is a patent licensing company, but slightly different than what we typically see from those kinds of entities.

MobileMedia is a patent licensing company formed by MPEG LA, Nokia, and Sony -- in other words, not one-off companies that make all their money from patent settlements. MobileMedia claimed that Apple's iPhone infringed on 16 of its patents. A jury found that Apple did infringe, but following a renewed motion for JMOL, the district court reversed some parts of the verdict.

Fed. Cir. Upholds Internet Business Method Patent

Over here at FindLaw's Federal Circuit blog, we're no fans of business method patents. Every chance we get, we write about, and celebrate, another Federal Circuit opinion using Alice v. CLS Bank to invalidate phony baloney "on a computer" method patents.

After a string of Alice success stories, in which the Federal Circuit struck patents for regular old, ordinary, analog things done on a computer, the court has upheld a business method patent because the problem the patent sought to solve actually was something unique to the Internet.

A Little Info About the Final Product Doesn't Break EMVR: Fed Cir.

The "entire market value rule" (EMVR) is a way of limiting damages on patent infringement. It requires the prevailing party in a patent infringement case to base its damages only on the value of the infringing component in a device, not the value of the entire device itself.

Ericsson sued big-name makers of network technology like D-Link and Netgear, and computer manufacturers like Toshiba and Dell, claiming they made devices with 802.11n-compliant wireless chips and therefore needed a license.

Ericsson won at trial, but the real question on appeal is whether its damage award broke the EMVR.

Ultramercial's Patent on Ads in Online Videos Finally Gets Tossed

Following Alice v. CLS Bank last term, all those "on a computer" business method patents were seriously called into question. We've seen new lawsuits spring up over invalidating old patents, and Alice get invoked in current litigation over "on a computer" patents.

One of the highest-profile cases was Ultramercial v. Hulu, also known as the WildTangent case for one of its other defendants. The short, short version is that Ultramercial owns a patent that purports to cover viewing free streaming videos online in exchange for watching a little advertising throughout -- basically, exactly what Hulu and YouTube do.

Fed Cir. Says Infringement Must Happen 'Within' the United States

Halo Electronics makes electronic packages for use on printed circuit boards. It has three patents on this technology, filed in 1995. Pulse Electronics also makes electronic packages for use on printed circuit boards. Uh oh. Thankfully, though, Pulse only sells its products in Asia.

Or does it? After Pulse incorporated some of its electronics into equipment sold by Cisco in the United States, Halo sent Pulse a polite letter asking if Pulse would like to enter into a license agreement. A Pulse engineer determined that Halo's patents were not invalid. Pulse never consulted a lawyer and kept selling its products anyway.

Fed. Cir. Denies Rehearing in Drug Obviousness Case, With Dissents

Patents are supposed to be issued for new and novel things, not things that anybody could have come up with. A patent can be invalidated for "obviousness" if the thing that is to be patented is based on prior art and that thing would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in that field.

In the field of pharmaceuticals, a drug can be considered obvious if it's the made by adding something to an extant chemical -- something that anyone could have done and the result of which anyone would have expected. But what about after it's patented? That doesn't work, affirmed the Federal Circuit, in a divided opinion over a rehearing en banc in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva Pharmaceuticals.