Written By: David Youngkin

Recently the Federal Circuit in Lumen View Technology LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc. upheld the district courts finding of exceptionality.  However, the Federal Circuit found it was improper to double the awarded attorney fees. 

Lumen View is the exclusive license of U.S. Patent 8,069,073 (“the ‘073 patent”), which is directed to methods of facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision making.  Findthebest.com (“FTB”) operated a website that provided personalized product and service recommendations based on user inputted information.  Lumen View filed suit alleging that FTB infringed the claims of the ‘073 patent.

Written by: Justin Blaufeld

Belden and Berk-Tek compete in making and selling telecommunications cable and cabling systems. In 2012, Berk-Tek's predecessor (Nexans, Inc.) petitioned for inter partes review of Belden's U.S. Patent No. 6,074,503, which claims a method for making a communications cable.    

Written By: Roland Casillas, Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. U.S. 9,126,487 B2 

Hoverboard which Generates Magnetic lift to Carry a Person

Inventors: D. Gregory Henderson, Shauna Moran, Mitchell Dougherty, Victor Espinoza, Robert William Melvin, James Janicki, David P Olynick

Assignee: Arx Pax, LLC 


Written By: John Kirkpatrick

Appellant Inphi asserts that U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 (’537 patent) is invalid because the negative claim limitation “and the chip selects of the first and second number of chip selects are DDR chip selects that are not CAS, RAS, or bank address signals” does not meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1.  Specifically, Inphi argues that specification fails to provide a reason to exclude the negative limitation.  Santorus, Inc. v. Par Pham., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Court (O’MALLEY, Reyna, Chen) found substantial evidence to affirm the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the Board) determination that the negative claim limitation is supported under §112, paragraph 1.     


Written by: Roland Casillas, Web and Blog Editor

Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., No. 14-1789 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Appellant, Jack Wolfskin applied to the Patent and Trademark Office for a design mark consisting of an angled paw print for the use with its products, clothing, footwear, and accessories. Appellee, New Millennium Sports filed a response to oppose the application as it would likely create confusion with its own registered mark. In response, Jack Wolfskin filed a counterclaim for cancellation of New Millennium’s mark since they have abandoned said mark. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board found for New Millennium Sports, stating there was no abandonment of the mark. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with the Board and New Millennium in finding no abandonment has taken place.                            


Written By: John Kirkpatrick

Appellant Achates argues that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred when the Board instituted an inter partes review (IPR) of Achates’ patents because Appellee Apple’s petitions for the review were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).  The Federal Circuit (Prost, Lourie, and LINN) concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to hear Achates’ appeal because “the Board’s determinations to institute IPRs are final and non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).”


Written By: Roland Casillas, Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. U.S. 9,170,707 B1

Method and System for Generating a Smart Time-Lapse Video Clip

Inventors: Jason N. Laska, San Francisco, CA (US); Greg R. Nelson, San Bruno, CA (US); Greg Duffy, San Francisco, CA (US); Hiro Mitsuji, San Francisco, CA (US); Lawrence W. Neal, Oakland, CA (US); and Cameron Hill, San Francisco, CA (US)

Assignee: Google Inc.


Written By: David Youngkin

Spectrum appealed the district court’s holding that U.S. Patent 6,500,829 (“the ‘829 patent’”) was invalid as obvious and that claims were not infringed by Sandoz’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”).  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that a substantially pure compound would have been obvious over both the 50/50 mixture and pure isomer.  Additionally the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that held Spectrum could not rely on the doctrine of equivalents because of prosecution history estopple.

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