People v. Hogan
(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly considered the drug factory presumption of Penal Law section 220.25(2); and 2) the decision regarding whether a defendant testifies before the grand jury is a strategic one requiring the expert judgment of counsel, and defense counsel’s refusal to facilitate defendant’s appearance before the grand jury did not amount to per se ineffective assistance of counsel.
People v. Gross
(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child are affirmed where defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance by: 1) not calling an expert witness to testify that the absence of physical evidence on the victim three years after the last alleged incident could indicate the victim was never anally raped by defendant; and 2) failing to object to testimony of various prosecution witnesses recalling the victim’s statements that she was being sexually abused.
People v. Watson
(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon and resisting arrest is affirmed where the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relieving defendant’s attorney and appointing new counsel. Attorney’s employer, New York County Defender Services, represented the key government witness in a separate case arising from the same occurrence and refused to permit defendant’s attorney to search for and potentially call him as a witness.
Sean R. v. BMW of North America
(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury case, alleging that plaintiff suffered severe mental and physical disabilities from in utero exposure to unleaded gasoline vapor caused by a defective fuel hose, the trial court’s exclusion of plaintiff’s expert witnesses from testifying at trial is affirmed where the experts did not rely on generally accepted principles and methodologies to reach their conclusions.
Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. County of Rensselaer
(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an insurance action, in which defendant refused to pay plaintiff more than a single deductable payment following the defense of a class action and resulting settlement involving the county, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff is affirmed where county’s improper strip searches of arrestees over a four-year period constituted multiple occurrences under the insurance policy and defendant is responsible for paying deductibles to plaintiff with respect to each class member.
Sangaray v. West River Associates
(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a trip and fall action, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where there was dispute as to whether defendant or an adjacent business’s portion of a sidewalk was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.
People v. Holley
(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for attempted robbery and two counts of assault is affirmed where the People met their burden to rebut a presumption of an unduly suggestive array after failing to preserve the computer-generated array of photographs that led to defendant's identification. The court expressly extended the presumption of suggestiveness to the People's failure to preserve a record of computer-generated photo arrays.
People v. Varenga
(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for assault in the second degree is affirmed and the court held that when a new rule is announced during the one-year grace period for filing a notice of appeal, a judgment becomes final 30 days after sentencing where a defendant does not file a timely direct appeal and does not move for leave to file a late notice of appeal under CPL 460.30 (1).
People v. Jurgins
(Court of Appeals of New York) - Sentence for robbery in the first degree is reversed where defendant's prior conviction for attempt to commit robbery in Washington, D.C. is not the equivalent of a felony in New York and cannot serve as a proper basis for a second felony offender adjudication.
Quidel Corporation v. Super. Ct
(California Court of Appeal) - Granted writ of mandate and directed trial court to vacate order granting summary adjudication motion. The appeals court held that the trial court’s per se application of Business and Professions Code section 16600 to the contract in question was incorrect.
Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Postal Service was barred here from challenging a private company's patent for a method for processing mail. Because federal agencies do not fall within the statutory definition of a person, they are ineligible to petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.
Matlin v. Spin Master Corp.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a commercial dispute for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant companies, which lacked sufficient contacts with Illinois. The case involved an alleged failure to pay royalties to the owners of certain patent rights.
Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp.
(United States Fifth Circuit) - The Fifth Circuit transferred a case back to the Federal Circuit, from which it had been transferred. The two circuits disagreed about which one was the proper forum for this appeal, which involved a company's claim that a competitor violated antitrust law by obtaining a patent through fraud.
ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC
(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute between two companies in the agriculture-related biotechnology field, affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment after a jury trial. The case involved antitrust claims, patent infringement claims and an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement.
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an inventor's sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention. The dispute here involved two pharmaceutical companies that disagreed about whether a certain drug was under patent; one of the companies wanted to market a generic version of it. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion.
Soarus LLC v. Bolson Materials International Corp.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a company did not violate a nondisclosure agreement by including particular information in a patent application for a 3D printing process. Affirmed summary judgment against a breach-of-contract claim brought by the other party to the nondisclosure agreement, a distributor of specialty polymers.
ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that some, but not all, claims in a telecommunications patent were unpatentable as obvious. Finding no error, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determinations made in an review.
Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.
Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.
IXI IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that certain patent claims relating to a wireless networking device were invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding.
University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of no interference-in-fact in a patent case involving the CRISPR-Cas9 system for the targeted cutting of DNA molecules. The Federal Circuit found no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's conclusion of no interference-in-fact, in this case pitting the Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others against the University of California, the University of Vienna, and others.
Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions invalidating three patents relating to videogame software. The patentee contended that the petitions for inter partes review were time-barred because an alleged real party in interest had been served with a complaint alleging infringement over one year prior to the IPRs' filing dates. Finding possible merit in this argument, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim upon finding that the district court's grant of summary judgment resulted from an erroneous claim construction. The patentee accused several telecommunications companies of infringing its patent for an application-aware resource allocator. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the patentee that the district court construed the patent incorrectly. The panel vacated in relevant part and remanded.
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Appeals Board (PTO Board) that certain claims relating to a wireless communications system are not patentable. In vacating and remanding, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the PTO Board did not consider portions of plaintiff’s reply.
In re Maatita
(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent application covering the design of an athletic shoe bottom should not have been rejected. The applicant argued that the patent claim met the enablement and definiteness requirements even though it used a single two-dimensional plan-view drawing to disclose the shoe bottom design. Agreeing that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make comparisons for infringement purposes, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's rejection of the patent claim.
In Re: Power Integrations, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Denied petitions for writ of mandamus. Plaintiff sought a writ challenging the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denying the institution of inter partes review of claims from three patents owned by Semiconductor Components industries, LLC.
Core Wireless Licensing v. Apple, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. Plaintiff brought a patent infringement action. A jury found that the defendant infringed on both asserted claims and that neither claim was invalid. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed some of plaintiff’s infringement claims, but stated that plaintiff’s theory of infringement of other claims was inadequate to support the judgment of infringement and therefore reversed on that claim.
Click-to-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Remanded with instructions to dismiss, in a case where the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in determining that certain claims were not time-barred under 35 USC section 314.
Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. IANCU
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated in part and affirmed in part. Plaintiff owns patents for making flameless candles. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that certain claims by plaintiff were unpatentable and some claims were time barred. The Federal Circuit vacated the time barred decision as to one of the claims and affirmed the Board’s decision as to the other claims.
In Re Rembrandt Techs. LP Patent Litig.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part. Rembrandt filed numerous patent infringement actions against dozens of cable companies. After years of litigation, the district entered final judgment against Rembrandt for all claims. Cable company defendants filed a motion for attorney fees. The district court issued an order declaring the case exceptional and granting more than $51 million in fees. Rembrandt appealed the award. The Federal Circuit affirmed the exceptional case determination, but vacated and remanded the fees award for further analysis of the connection between the fees and the plaintiff’s misconduct.
BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued defendant for infringement of several patents related to systems and methods for indexing information stored in wide access databases. The district court agreed with the defendant and held all asserted claims invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. section 101.
Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. ITC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed finding of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that plaintiff had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing components of automated teller machines that infringed on certain patents. The court reasoned that the term “cheque standby unit” is a means-plus-function term and lacks corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.
JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review decision on grounds that the patent challenger lacked Article III standing. The challenger asserted that the patentee's claims for a motor vehicle drivetrain were invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the challenger lacked standing because it had not established an actual injury; in particular, it had no product on the market or any concrete plans for future activity that would likely cause the patentee to complain of infringement.
Advantek Marketing, Inc. v. Shanghai Walk-Long Tools Co., Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.
GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding, LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded the Patent Board's prior ruling against plaintiff which had filed suit to challenge the defendant’s proposed patent. In vacating and remanding, the Appellate court ruled that plaintiff’s printed catalog was prior art and that the defendant’s proposed patent could have been based on information in that catalog and that the trial court had not properly considered the catalog in making its finding.
Nantkwest, Inc. v IANCU
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the trial court's decision which had denied Plaintiff's challenge to the Patent Board’s denial of its patent. The government sought to recover costs and attorney’s fees under section 145 of the Patent Act. The trial court held that costs may be recovered under section 145, but not attorney fees.
Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent claim relating to light-emitting diodes was invalid because it did not meet the enablement requirement. After a jury found that the defendants had infringed Boston University's patent, the defendants appealed on the ground that the patent was invalid because it did not adequately teach the public how to make and use the invention. Agreeing with this argument, the Federal Circuit held that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
ZUP, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a patent for a water recreational board was invalid as obvious. On appeal, the patent holder argued that its invention of a recreational board that would help athletically challenged people ride on the water was not obvious. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in this patent infringement action.
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.
Horvath v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed the dismissal of overtime compensation claims brought by a special agent of the U.S. Secret Service. In a class action complaint, the plaintiff special agent argued that Office of Personnel Management regulations improperly required that certain overtime hours be worked consecutively in order to trigger compensation. Agreeing with his position, the Federal Circuit held that the challenged OPM regulations were contrary to the unambiguous meaning of the relevant statute. The panel thus reversed in relevant part and remanded.
Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that certain computer-related patent claims were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. In this patent infringement case, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the patent claims at issue failed under the abstract idea exception, because the claims lacked any arguable technical advance over conventional computer and network technology. The patent claims here related to a way to display two sets of information, in a non-overlapping way, on a display screen.
Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Electronics Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated a patent noninfringement judgment based on an erroneous construction of the patent's language. The sole issue on appeal concerned a patent pertaining to energy efficient lighting apparatuses and what precisely was meant by the words attachment surface. Because the district court had adopted an erroneous construction of those words, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of patent claim invalidity involving certain claims related to a drug distribution system for tracking prescriptions of sensitive drugs, such as those with addictive properties. In affirming, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err and that its determination, on inter partes review, that the patents were invalid was obvious.
TF3 Ltd. v. Tre Milano LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a finding of patent claim invalidity relating to patent claims for a hairstyling device. In reversing, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in holding, on inter partes review, that the patent claims were invalid on grounds of anticipation and that the Board had mistakenly construed the claims more broadly than the description in the patent specification merited. On the correct claim construction, the Federal Circuit held that the claims were not anticipated.
Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions v. Custopharm Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the bench trial finding that valid patents still existed in a longstanding pharmaceutical drug called Aveed after defendant Custopharm was sued for patent infringement by Endo Pharmaceuticals and Bayer after seeking FDA approval to produce a generic version of Aveed.
Polara Engineering Inc. v. Campbell Co.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part a patent infringement final judgment. Polara, a manufacturer of accessible pedestrian signal systems, filed suit against its competitor Campbell and prevailed after a trial on certain infringement claims. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Campbell's JMOL motion but vacated the enhanced damages award and remanded for further proceedings.
Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement action, arising after two manufacturers of ambient light sensors shared technical and financial information during negotiations for a possible merger, the appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part a jury verdict for plaintiff as follows: 1) defendant's liability for trade secret misappropriation regarding a photodiode array structure was affirmed; 2) several patent infringement claims were reversed and several were affirmed; and 3) monetary damage awards were vacated and remanded for further consideration.
Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part where a jury found that defendant had infringed on plaintiff's patents and had awarded damages based on the entire market value rule. The Federal Circuit court affirmed the infringement judgment, but vacated the damages award stating that the entire market value rule could not be used in this case.
Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Granted plaintiff's motion to remand. In light of the US Supreme Court decision, SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, plaintiff moved to remand to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the decision in SAS established a process where the petitioner gets to define the proceeding and that all challenges raised in the petitions are to receive review by the Board.