Category: Civil Procedure    
By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor 
TitleArlington Ind., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 2013-1357 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2014).
IssueBridgeport argues that we have jurisdiction over its appeal [for contempt of an injunction] under both § 1292(c)(1) and § 1292(c)(2).
Arlington Ind., Inc. at *5.
HoldingBecause the district court’s order simply interpreted the 2004 Injunction and is not an otherwise final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Id. at *5.
Category: Post-Grant Proceedings  
 By: Karthik Subramanian, Contributor 
TitleIn re Bd. of Tr. of the Univ. of Ill., No. 2014-122 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2015) (non-precedential).
Issue“The Board of Trustees for the University of Illinois (“University”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to withdraw its orders instituting inter partes review in cases IPR2013-401 and IPR2013-404.”
In re Bd. of Tr. of the Univ. of Ill. at *1.
Holding“The petition is denied [because a party seeking issuance of a writ to vacate an inter partes review cannot establish a clear and indisputable right to relief].”
Id. at 3 (text added).
Category: 101   
By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor 
TitleDigitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., No. 2013-1600, -1601, -1602, -1603, -1604, -1605, -1606, -1607, -1608, -1609, -1610, -1611, -1612, -1613, -1614, -1615, -1616, -1617, -1618 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2014).
Issues[1] First, Digitech asserts that the district court erred in finding that the device profile claims are directed to a collection of data that lacks tangible or physical properties. [2] Second, Digitech argues that the district court erred in finding that the asserted method claims encompass an abstract idea and are not tied to a specific machine or apparatus.
Digitech Image Tech., LLC at *6 (text added).
[1] We […] hold that the device profile claims of the ’415 patent do not encompass eligible subject matter as required by section 101 and are therefore not patent eligible [because the claimed “device profile” is a collection of intangible color and spatial information, and there is nothing in the claims that require said information to be in a tangible medium].
Id. at *10.
[2] [W]e hold that the process described in the asserted claims is directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under section 101 [because the claims recite an abstract process of gathering and combining data that does not require input from a physical device].
Id. at *13.
Category: Claim Construction  
By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor  
TitleGolden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2013-1496 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2014).
[1: Claim Construction] GBT disputes the portion of the district court’s construction requiring that the preamble be spread prior to transmission. It argues that […] It argues that its submission of its stipulated construction to the PTO in an IDS does not constitute a disclaimer of the broader claim scope.
Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. at *6.
[2: Waiver of Alternate Arguments] GBT also argues that the district court erred by declining to modify its judgment of noninfringement on reconsideration. GBT’s argument is two-fold. [...] [I]t contends that it did not waive its signature sequence infringement theory because that theory was not introduced for the first time in its motion for reconsideration.
Id. at *12.
[1: Claim Construction] We conclude that GBT’s submissions during prosecution of its stipulated construction for the term preamble constitute disclaimer. Although we generally construe terms according to their plain and ordinary meanings to one of ordinary skill in the art, we depart from that meaning where there is disclaimer. […] Here, GBT clearly and unmistakably limited the term preamble to “a signal used for communicating with the base station that is spread before transmission[,]” [during reexamination of the ’267 patent and prosecution of the ’427 patent].
Id. at *6 (text added).
[2: Waiver of Alternate Arguments] We conclude that GBT’s signature sequence infringe- ment theory was raised for the first time in its motion for reconsideration. Prior to its motion for reconsideration, GBT did not argue that the signature sequence alone in the accused device was itself a preamble, but instead that the PRACH preamble met the preamble limitations in the claims.
Id. at *13.
Category: 102   
 By: Christian Hannon, Contributor  
TitleIn re Reijers, No. 2014-1052 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2014) (non-precedential).
Issue[Whether] Braun [] disclose[s] a method for blowing liquid from a food product, as required by Claim 11.
In re Reijers at *5 (text added).
HoldingBecause substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Braun anticipates Claim 11 [because based on inherency, the device in Braun would necessarily blow liquid off a food product as part of its drying process].
Id. at *2 (text added).
Category: Civil Procedure   
  By: John Kirkpatrick, Contributor
TitleKrauser v. BioHorizons, Inc., No. 2013-1461 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014).
[1] [Does] Krauser’s complaint [raise] a substantial patent law issue [that requires the Federal Circuit to accept a transfer from a sister circuit, according to the following theories?]
Krauser at *7 (text added).
[1a] Krauser’s original complaint contained a patent law claim of inventorship.
Id. (text added).
[1b] [T]he well-pleaded complaint rule requires [the Federal Circuit] to consider the issue of patent law inventorship even when adjudicating Krauser’s claims of ownership [based on past agreements] and a quantum meruit theory.
Id. at *10 (text added).
[1c] [E]ven if Krauser’s [ownership] claims are based in state law, there is federal jurisdiction because Krauser seeks remedies that might be preempted by federal patent law.
Id. at *11 (text added).
[2] [E]ven if [the above theories are] ultimately incorrect, [the theories] are nonetheless “plausible” and require [the Federal Circuit] to follow the law of the case of [the] sister circuit.
Id. at *8 (text added).
[1a] We have repeatedly held that an amendment to the complaint that dismisses the patent law claims without prejudice, as here, deprives this court of jurisdiction over the case. Krauser at *10 (internal citation removed).
[1b] The resolution of the inventorship question is neither “necessary” nor “substantial” to the case.
Id. at *11.
[1c] [In an analogous situation, we found no] federal jurisdiction where plaintiff “[sought] remedies that might be preempted by federal patent law” because federal preemption was only a defense to the plaintiff’s suit.
Id. at *12 (text added, internal citation removed).
[2] [The Supreme Court] held that a transferee court would “not exceed its power in revisiting the jurisdictional issue, and once it conclude[s] that the prior decision was ‘clearly wrong’ it [is] obliged to decline jurisdiction.”
Id. at *8 (text added, internal citation removed).
 By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor  
TitleStauffer v. Brooks. Bros. Group, No. 2013-1180 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2014).
IssueAfter the AIA became law and eliminated the qui tam provision of the false-marking statute, Mr. Stauffer acknowledged that he no longer had standing to pursue his lawsuit [which was initially brought prior to enactment of the AIA]. The district court subsequently issued an order directing him to show cause why, in light of the AIA, his suit should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Mr. Stauffer responded by arguing that the AIA amendments were unconstitutional because [1] they amounted to a pardon by Congress, thus violating the doctrine of separation of powers. He also argued [2] that, by making the elimination of the qui tam provision applicable to pending suits, the statute violated the common-law principle that prohibits use of a pardon to vitiate a qui tam action once the action has commenced.
Stauffer at *3 (text added).
[1] We […] conclude that the AIA amendment to the false-marking statute that eliminated liability for expired patents does not constitute an impermissible pardon [because the amendments amount to a repeal of a law, and not an attempt to set aside an already adjudicated punishment].
Id. at *11-12.
[2] [W]e conclude that the AIA amendments do not violate the common-law principle on which Mr. Stauffer relies because (1) he has no vested rights in his lawsuit, and (2) the AIA amendments do not constitute a pardon.
Id. at *12.

Category: Claim Construction 
By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor  
TitleX2Y Attenuators, LLC v. ITC, No. 2013-1340 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2014).
IssueX2Y contends that the ITC improperly read several functional and structural limitations into the meaning of the term “electrode[“ based on statement on parent patents.] It contends that the plain meaning of “electrode” denotes a single conductor rather than three conductors, let alone a three-conductor sandwich structure having paired electromagnetically opposite conductors flanking the central conductor.
X2Y Attenuators, LLC at *6 (text added).
HoldingWe conclude that the ITC correctly construed the electrode terms. The patents’ statements that the presence of a common conductive pathway electrode positioned between paired electromagnetically opposite
Id. at *7.

© 2000-2014, Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society
Disclaimer & Privacy Policy