Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Actelion”) appeals from the grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in favor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) regarding the length of the patent term adjustment (“PTA”) for U.S. Patent 8,658,675 (“the ’675 patent”), entitled “Pyridin-4-yl Derivatives.” See Actelion Pharm., Ltd. v. Lee, 216 F. Supp. 3d 680 (E.D. Va. 2016). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
AbbVie, Inc., and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (“AbbVie”) filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia against MedImmune Limited (“MedImmune”), seeking a declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent No. 6,248,516 (“the ’516 patent”) is invalid. The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02, and alternatively that it would not exercise jurisdiction if it existed, and it granted MedImmune’s motion to dismiss. We affirm.
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an action under the Copyright Act.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed on his pen and ink depiction of two dolphins crossing underwater. Applying the objective extrinsic test for substantial similarity, the panel held that this depiction was an idea that was found first in nature and was not a protectable element. Because the only area of commonality between the parties’ works was an element first found in nature, expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all, the district court properly granted summary judgment.
BMG Rights Management (US) LLC (“BMG”), which owns copyrights in musical compositions, filed this suit alleging copyright infringement against Cox Communications, Inc. and CoxCom, LLC (collectively, “Cox”), providers of high-speed Internet access. BMG seeks to hold Cox contributorily liable for infringement of BMG’s copyrights by subscribers to Cox’s Internet service. Following extensive discovery, the district court held that Cox had not produced evidence that it had implemented a policy entitling it to a statutory safe harbor defense and so granted summary judgment on that issue to BMG. After a two-week trial, a jury found Cox liable for willful contributory infringement and awarded BMG $25 million in statutory damages. Cox appeals, asserting that the district court erred in denying it the safe harbor defense and incorrectly instructed the jury. We hold that Cox is not entitled to the safe harbor defense and affirm the district court’s denial of it, but we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for a new trial because of certain errors in the jury instructions.
Paice LLC and The Abell Foundation, Inc. (collectively, “Paice”) appeal from final written decisions in six inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) held certain challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,237,634 (“’634 patent”) and 8,214,097 (“’097 patent”) unpatentable.1 For the following reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. In particular, we vacate the Board’s obviousness determinations as they relate to the ’634 patent’s “electrical” claims and remand for the Board to determine whether those claims find written description support in the priority applications and the references incorporated therein. We affirm the Board’s obviousness determinations as to all other claims.
The panel vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a trademark infringement case, affirmed the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded with instructions.
Eat Right Foods, which sold “EatRight”-branded cookies to Whole Foods for many years, alleged that Whole Foods infringed on its trademark by selling a variety of foods under the “EatRight America” mark.
The panel concluded that disputed material facts establishing or defeating the affirmative defenses of laches and acquiescence had not been resolved. As to laches, the panel concluded that if the district court had credited Eat Right Foods’ evidence that it waited to file suit because it was attempting to resolve its claims against Whole Foods without litigation, then the court might have come to a different conclusion about the reasonableness of the delay. The panel also vacated the district court’s finding that Whole Foods suffered expectations-based prejudice. As to acquiescence, the panel held that the flaws in the district court’s unreasonable delay and prejudice analyses also affected its acquiescence analysis. In addition, the district court failed to make factual findings regarding the extent and reasonableness of Whole Foods’ reliance on Eat Right Foods’ actions.
LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”) appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’ decisions (1) denying summary judgment that claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 (“’476 patent”) and claims 11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (“’020 patent”) are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101; (2) denying judgment as matter of law that U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 (“Blanchard”) anticipates the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102; and (3) denying judgment as a matter of law that the claims are not infringed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Appellant MaxLinear, Inc. (“MaxLinear”) appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 16-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,075,585 (“the ’585 patent”) owned by appellee CF CRESPE LLC (“CRESPE”). MaxLinear seeks review of the Board’s decision with respect to dependent claims 4, 6-9, and 20-21.
The Board based its decision on an analysis of independent claims 1 and 17. However, in a separate IPR, No. IPR2014-00728 (“the ’728 IPR”), claims 1 and 17 were held to be unpatentable, and that decision was affirmed by our court during the pendency of this appeal. CF CRESPE LLC v. Silicon Labs. Inc. (CRESPE I), 670 F. App’x 707, 708 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Because the Board did not address arguments concerning patentability of the dependent claims separately from the nowunpatentable independent claims, we vacate the decision and remand to the Board, with instructions to consider the patentability of the dependent claims 4, 6-9, and 21, in light of our decision holding claims 1 and 17 unpatentable.
In a pending inter partes review proceeding (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), Arthrex, Inc. disclaimed all claims that were the subject of the petition. The disclaimer occurred before the Board issued an institution decision. The Board then entered an adverse judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Arthrex appeals. Because we conclude that the Board acted within the scope of the regulation, we affirm.
Janssen Biotech, Inc., and New York University (collectively, “Janssen”) appeal from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) resulting from an ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 (“’471 patent”). The Board affirmed the rejection of claims 1–7 of the ’471 patent as unpatentable under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Because the claims are barred under that doctrine, we affirm.