Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC

The present appeals arise from a series of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) between Ultratec, Inc. (“Ultratec”) and CaptionCall, LLC (“CaptionCall”). Ultratec owns U.S. Patent Nos. 5,909,482 (“the ’482 patent”), 6,233,314 (“the ’314 patent”), 6,594,346 (“the ’346 patent”), 6,603,835 (“the ’835 patent”), 7,003,082 (“the ’082 patent”), 7,319,740 (“the ’740 patent”), 7,555,104 (“the ’104 patent”), and 8,213,578 (“the ’578 patent”). The patents disclose and claim systems for assisting deaf or hard-ofhearing users to make phone calls. CaptionCall petitioned for IPR of certain claims of Ultratec’s patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) held that all challenged claims were either anticipated or would have been obvious in light of a variety of prior art references. Ultratec appealed to our court. The United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Department of Justice (collectively, “the PTO”) intervened to defend the Board’s decisions. Because the Board failed to consider material evidence and failed to explain its decisions to exclude the evidence, we vacate and remand.

Download Ultratec Inc. v. CaptionCall LLC

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Patent assignee Return Mail, Inc. (“Return Mail”) appeals from the final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in a review of a covered business method (“CBM”) patent. The Board held that the U.S. Postal Service and the United States (collectively, “the Postal Service”) were not statutorily barred from filing the underlying petition for review. On the merits, the Board determined that all of the challenged patent claims were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm.

Download Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Stepan Co.

Stepan Company (“Stepan”) appeals from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1–31 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/456,567 (“the ’567 application”). For the reasons discussed below, we vacate and remand.

Download Stepan Co.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd.

Nidec Motor Corporation (“Nidec”) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The Board determined that claims 1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,626,349 (the “’349 Patent”) are invalid as anticipated or obvious. We affirm.

Download Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Georgetown Rail Equipment Co. v. Holland L.P.

Following a claim construction ruling adverse to Appellant Holland L.P. (“Holland”), a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“District Court”) found that Holland infringed Appellee Georgetown Rail Equipment Company’s (“Georgetown”) U.S. Patent 7,616,329 (“the ’329 patent”) and awarded Georgetown lost profits. The District Court later approved an additional award of enhanced damages based on a finding of willful infringement. Holland appeals the District Court’s conclusions as to claim construction, willful infringement, and enhanced damages, as well as its decision to deny Holland’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of noninfringement. See Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P. (Georgetown Rail II), No. 6:13-cv-366, 2016 WL 3346084, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 16, 2016) (denying JMOL and granting Motions for Finding of Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages); Georgetown Rail Equip Co. v. Holland L.P. (Georgetown Rail I), No. 6:13-cv-366-JDL, 2014 WL 11498109, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2014) (Claim Construction Order); J.A. 162−63 (Final Judgment). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). We affirm.

Download Georgetown Rail Equipment Co. v. Holland L.P.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.

Visual Memory, LLC appeals the district court’s dismissal of its patent infringement complaint against NVIDIA Corporation. The district court held that Visual Memory’s U.S. Patent No. 5,953,740 is drawn to patent ineligible subject matter, and therefore its complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We conclude instead that the ’740 patent claims an improvement to computer memory systems and is not directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.

Download Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Amgen, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.

Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) appeals an order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denying Amgen’s motion to compel discovery from Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) in a patent infringement case governed by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, 804 (2010) (amending 42 U.S.C. § 262). Amgen alternatively seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the court to compel discovery.

Because we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order under the collateral order doctrine and find that Amgen fails to satisfy the prerequisites for mandamus, we dismiss the appeal and deny the writ.

Download Amgen Inc.. v. Hospira Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. (“Romag”) owns U.S. Patent No. 5,722,126 (“’126 patent”) on magnetic snap fasteners, which it sells under its registered trademark, ROMAG, U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,095,367 (“’367 trademark”). Romag sued Fossil, Inc. and various retailers (together, “Fossil”) for, inter alia, patent infringement, trademark infringement, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (“district court”). The jury returned a verdict for Romag, finding that Fossil had engaged in patent and trademark infringement and in unfair trade practices. A two-day bench trial resolving other issues followed, after which the district court entered judgment on the jury verdict. This court affirmed the judgment of patent and trademark infringement; other aspects of the judgment were not appealed. See Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., Nos. 2014-1896, 2014-1897, 2017 WL 1906904 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2017) (“Romag II”).

Romag sought attorney’s fees under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 285, Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), and CUTPA. The district court granted fees under the Patent Act and CUTPA, but not under the Lanham Act. Fossil appeals and Romag cross-appeals. We vacate and remand.

Download Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation

Personal Audio, LLC appeals the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or “Board”) in inter partes review (IPR) of United States Patent No. 8,112,504 (“the ’504 Patent”). This IPR was instituted on petition of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), described as a non-profit organization that advocates in the public interest of consumers of digital technology. The PTAB held claims 31–35 of the ’504 Patent unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to this appeal.1 On the merits of the appeal, we affirm the judgment of unpatentability.

Download Personal Audio LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp.

Homeland Housewares, LLC (“Homeland”) petitioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for an inter partes review of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,688 (“’688 patent”), which is assigned to Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”). The Board did not construe the key term “settling speed” found in the claims and determined that the claims were not invalid as anticipated by prior art reference U.S. Patent No. 6,609,821 (“Wulf”). Homeland appeals. We reverse.

Download Homeland Housewares LLC v. Whirlpool Corp.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.