In re: Oath Holdings, Inc.

This is the second petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Oath Holdings Inc. (formerly known as Yahoo Holdings, Inc.) to challenge the district court’s conclusion that Oath missed its opportunity to object to venue in the Eastern District of New York for the patent case filed against it. When Oath first sought mandamus, we denied the request, stating that Oath should ask the district court to reconsider its initial conclusion in light of In re Micron Technology, Inc., 875 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Oath made that request to the district court, but the court reached the same conclusion it had reached earlier and denied the request for dismissal or transfer. We now grant mandamus and remand with the instruction that the district court either dismiss or transfer the case.

Download In re Oath Holdings Inc.

 

Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Arista Networks, Inc. (“Arista”) petitioned for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597 (“the ’597 patent”), which is owned by Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”). After instituting an IPR, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) upheld some of those challenged claims as patentable but invalidated others. Both Arista and Cisco appeal various aspects of the Board’s decision. Having considered the parties’ arguments, we reverse and remand as to Arista’s appeal, and we affirm Cisco’s cross-appeal.

Download Arista Networks Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

 

Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Arcelormittal Atlantique v. AK Steel Corp.

Appellants appeal from a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment as a matter of law after concluding Appellants’ infringement action was collaterally estopped. Because evidence indicates a material difference in the accused products in this action, collateral estoppel does not apply and the entry of summary judgment was error. We vacate and remand.

Download Arcelormittal Atlantique v. AK Steel Corp.

 

Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.

Patent owner Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Acceleration”) appeals the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding unpatentable claims 1–9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634, claims 1–11 and 16–19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344, and claims 1–11 and 16–17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2k Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc. (collectively, “Blizzard”) cross-appeal portions of the Board’s decisions holding patentable claims 10–18 of the ’634 patent, as well as substitute claims 19 of the ’966 patent, 21 of the ’344 patent, and 25 of the ’634 patent. Blizzard also cross-appeals the Board’s decisions holding that the Lin article is not a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Download Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.

 

Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., and Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware invalidating all asserted claims of patents directed to COPAXONE® 40mg/mL, a product marketed for treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Because the district court correctly held the asserted claims invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we affirm.

Download Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

 

Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Yeda Research & Development Co. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

In this consolidated appeal, Appellant Yeda Research & Development Co., Ltd. challenges the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decisions finding the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250, 8,399,413, and 8,969,302 unpatentable as obvious in three inter partes review proceedings. We affirm the Board’s decisions.

Download Yeda Research & Development Co. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

 

Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid

Appellant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (“Roche”) owns U.S. Patent No. 5,643,723 (“the ’723 patent”), titled “Detection of a Genetic Locus Encoding Resistance to Rifampin in Microbacterial Cultures and in Clinical Specimens.” The United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that the asserted claims of the ’723 patent are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and are therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Roche appeals from a grant of summary judgment of invalidity. We affirm.

Download Roche Molecular Systems Inc. v. Cepheid

 

Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC

Data Engine Technologies LLC (“DET”) appeals the district court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings holding that the asserted claims of DET’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,590,259; 5,784,545; 6,282,551; and 5,303,146 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court held that the asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas and fail to provide an inventive concept. We conclude that, with the exception of claim 1 of the ’551 patent, the asserted claims of the ’259, ’545, and ’551 patents (“Tab Patents”) are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. These claims are not abstract, but rather are directed to a specific improved method for navigating through complex three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets. We agree, however, that the asserted claims of the ’146 patent, reciting methods for tracking changes to data in spreadsheets, are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, recognizing, and storing changed information. After a searching review, we find nothing in these claims that provides an inventive concept sufficient to render the claims patent eligible. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand.

Download Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC

 

Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Iancu

Woodbolt Distributors, LLC (“Woodbolt”) requested that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) reexamine U.S. Patent No. 8,067,381 (“the ʼ381 patent”) owned by Natural Alternatives International, Inc. (“NAI”). The PTO ordered inter partes reexamination, and the examiner rejected the challenged claims as anticipated by or obvious over cited prior art, including a parent of the reexamined patent. NAI appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) final determination affirming the examiner’s rejections and its subsequent denial of NAI’s request for rehearing. Woodbolt is not a party to this appeal. The Director of the PTO has intervened to defend the Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We affirm.

Download Natural Alternatives International Inc. v. Iancu

 

Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.

Years after Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. first sued Atlanta Gas Light Co. for infringing its U.S. Patent No. 5,810,029, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted Atlanta Gas’s inter partes review (IPR), held all challenged claims of Bennett’s ’029 patent unpatentable, and then sanctioned Atlanta Gas. Bennett appeals, arguing that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) barred institution, that its claims should have survived, and that the Board should have imposed greater sanctions. Atlanta Gas crossappeals, seeking to overturn the sanctions.

Because the Board exceeded its authority and contravened § 315(b)’s time bar when it instituted Atlanta Gas’s petition, we vacate its final written decision. And because the Board has not yet quantified its sanction, we decline to consider the nonfinal sanctions order and instead remand to the Board.

Download Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.

 

Rejection from the USPTO? Patent or trademark, we can help.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.