ClassCo, Inc. appeals from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes reexamination No. 95/002,109 of ClassCo’s U.S. Patent No. 6,970,695. The Board affirmed an examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 23, 26–30, and 34 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm.
This case returns to us on vacatur and remand from the Supreme Court, “for further consideration in light of Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. __ (2016).” WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 15-1085, 2016 WL 761619 (U.S. June 20, 2016) (Mem.). On remand, we vacate the district court’s judgment with respect to enhanced damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and reinstate our earlier opinion and judgment in all other respects. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo.
Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd. (“Yeda”) appeals two decisions by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia—one decided in 2008 (No. 2015-1663) and the other in 2015 (No. 2015-1662). Both district court decisions reviewed determinations by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences regarding Yeda’s assertion that Abbott GmbH & Co. KG’s (“Abbott”) U.S. Patent No. 5,344,915 (the “’915 patent”) is invalid as anticipated.
The ’915 patent’s invalidity turns on whether it benefits from the filing dates from either of two German patent applications—P39 15 072 (the “’072 application”) and P39 22 089 (the “’089 application”). J.A. 5006. If it does, then the field of prior art narrows to exclude the anticipating reference. Whether the ’915 patent is entitled to benefit from the ’072 application’s filing date depends on whether the ’072 application provides adequate written description support for the invention claimed in the ’915 patent.
We affirm the district court’s 2015 decision that Abbott’s ’915 patent is supported by the written description of the ’072 application. As this renders moot Yeda’s appeal No. 2015-1663 concerning the district court’s 2008 decision, we dismiss that appeal for want of jurisdiction.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review. The Board held various claims of a patent owned by Wi-Fi One, LLC (“Wi-Fi”), to be anticipated. We affirm.
Defendant-Appellant LifeCell Corporation (“LifeCell”) appeals from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee LifeNet Health (“LifeNet”). Following claim construction and trial, a jury found LifeNet’s U.S. Patent No. 6,569,200 (“’200 patent”) infringed by LifeCell and not invalid. The district court denied LifeCell’s motion for a new trial and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on, inter alia, claim construction, non-infringement, and invalidity. The district court subsequently entered a final judgment consistent with the jury’s findings on infringement, validity, and damages. We affirm.
Luis Adrián Cortés Ramos ("Cortés") appeals from the dismissal of his contract and intellectual property claims against a variety of companies affiliated with Sony Music Entertainment ("Sony"). The dispute concerns an original song and music video that Cortés submitted to Sony as part of a songwriting contest sponsored by Sony. The District Court dismissed all of Cortés's claims. It did so on two grounds: that the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, and that Cortés failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Because Cortés has not appealed the ruling that his claims must be arbitrated, we affirm the order compelling arbitration.
This appeal is from a grant of judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,307,576 (‘‘the ’576 patent’’) and 6,611,278 (‘‘the ’278 patent’’) are invalid. The United States District Court for the Central District of California found that the asserted claims are directed to patentineligible subject matter and are therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“§ 101”). McRO, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC, 55 F. Supp. 3d 1214 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“Patentability Op.”). We hold that the ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules that relate sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea and is therefore patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. Accordingly, we reverse.
Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC (“Dynamic 3D”), along with Acacia Research Corporation and Acacia Research Group LLC (collectively, “Acacia”), appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas disqualifying counsel and dismissing its patent infringement complaint without prejudice. Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC v. Schlumberger Ltd., No. A- 14-CV-112-LY, 2015 WL 4578681 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2015) (“Order”). Because the district court did not err in disqualifying Dynamic 3D’s counsel and in dismissing the complaint, we affirm.
This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016). In the original appeal, Zimmer, Inc., Zimmer Surgical, Inc., and Zimmer Orthopaedic Surgical Products (collectively “Zimmer”) appealed from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,022,329 (“’329 patent”), 6,179,807 (“’807 patent”), and 7,144,383 (“’383 patent”) were valid and willfully infringed.
We affirmed the jury’s findings that the patents were valid and infringed, and the jury’s award of damages to plaintiff-appellees Stryker Corporation, Stryker Puerto Rico, Ltd., and Stryker Sales Corporation (collectively “Stryker”). Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 782 F.3d 649, 653 (Fed. Cir. 2014). However, applying the thencontrolling test for willful infringement and enhanced damages under In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (2007) (en banc), we reversed the jury’s willfulness finding and vacated the associated award of treble damages and attorneys’ fees. Stryker Corp., 782 F.3d at 660- 62.
Stryker petitioned for rehearing en banc, which this court denied. Stryker then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Seagate test regarding willfulness and enhanced damages was consistent with the Patent Act. Halo Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1928.
In its decision, the Supreme Court determined that the Seagate test “unduly confines the ability of district courts to exercise the discretion conferred on them.” Id. at 1935. Because we decided the willfulness question under the Seagate framework, the Supreme Court vacated our prior decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. at 1935-36.
On remand, we recalled our mandate and reopened the case. Because Halo was limited to the questions of willfulness and enhanced damages, it left the judgments on other issues undisturbed. For the reasons stated below, we therefore reaffirm the jury’s findings that Stryker’s patents were valid and infringed. In light of the new willfulness standard articulated by the Supreme Court, we also affirm the jury’s finding of willful infringement. However, we vacate and remand the district court’s award of treble damages. Finally, we vacate and remand the district court’s finding that this was an exceptional case and its award of attorneys’ fees.
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a copyright infringement case. Will Loomis, composer of the song “Bright Red Chords,” alleged that the defendants stole a two-measure vocal melody and used it as the theme for the verse melody in their hit song “Domino.” The panel held that Loomis did not put forth any potentially admissible evidence to establish that the Domino songwriters had access to Bright Red Chords, either on a chain-of-events theory or a widespread-dissemination theory. Accordingly, he failed to establish copyright infringement.