Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. (“Husky”) appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) inter partes review decision finding claims 1, 4–16, 18, and 20–22 of U.S. Patent 7,670,536 (“the ’536 patent”) anticipated. Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd., No. 2013-00290, 2014 WL 5454543, at *23 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014) (“Final Written Decision”). Athena Automation Ltd. (“Athena”) cross-appeals from the Board’s decision finding claims 2, 3, 17, and 19 of the ’536 patent not anticipated. Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd., No. 2013-00290 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2015) (decision on rehearing); see Joint App. (“J.A.”) 56–65. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Husky’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction; we vacate the Board’s decision on incorporation by reference and its finding of no anticipation with respect to claims 2, 3, 17, and 19; and we remand for further consideration of those latter claims.
Sprint Communication Company LP and its affiliates (collectively, “Sprint”) appeal from a final decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,452,932; 6,463,052; 6,633,561; 7,286,561; 6,298,064; and 6,473,429 (collectively, “the asserted patents”) are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Because “processing system” does not prevent the claims, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, from informing those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty, we reverse.
This appeal is related to the appeal in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV et al., No. 2015-1845, decided today. Although the patents at issue in the two cases are different, they share a similar specification. Because the legal issues presented in the two cases are closely related, our discussion of the governing legal principles in that case will not be repeated here, except to the extent that the difference between the claims in the two cases calls for a somewhat different legal analysis.
This trademark infringement action arises out of the parties’ use of the marks “SCAR” and “SCAR-Stock” in the firearms industry. Appellant Clyde Armory Inc. (“Clyde Armory”) appeals the district court’s partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee FN Herstal SA (“FN”), its grant of FN’s motion to strike Clyde Armory’s jury demand, its denial of Clyde Armory’s motion to amend the proposed pretrial order, and its entry of judgment against Clyde Armory following a bench trial. After careful review of the record and briefs of the parties, and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court on all issues raised on appeal.
The panel reversed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of Yves Sicre de Fontbrune’s action seeking to protect his copyright in photographs of Pablo Picasso’s artworks, and to enforce a French judgment of two million euros in astreinte in federal court against American art editor Alan Wofsy under the California Uniform ForeignCourt Monetary Judgment Recognition Act; and remanded. California’s Uniform Recognition Act governs the enforcement of foreign-country judgments that (1) grant or deny monetary recovery and (2) are “final, conclusive, and enforceable” under the law of the jurisdiction where rendered. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1715(a).
The panel held that Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 authorizes district courts to consider foreign legal materials – including expert testimony and declarations – outside the pleadings in rulings on a motion to dismiss because Rule 44.1 treats foreign law determinations as questions of law, not fact. The panel concluded that the district court did not err in considering expert declarations on the content of French law in ruling on Wofsy’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
The panel held that the district court erred in concluding that the award of an astreinte in this case constituted a “fine or other penalty” for the purposes of California’s Uniform Recognition Act. The panel further held that the astreinte was awarded in the context of a civil action in order to enforce a civil remedy provided for in the French Intellectual Property Code, and no criminal or penal proceedings were involved. The panel concluded that the astreinte awarded by the French court to de Fontbrune fell within the Uniform Recognition Act as a judgment that granted a sum of money.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in a reverse-confusion trademark dispute concerning the mark “FyreTV.” The district court denied the injunction because, among other reasons, the plaintiff pursued its preliminary-injunction motion with the urgency of someone out on a meandering evening stroll rather than someone in a race against time. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction, we affirm.