On March 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit delivered a ruling that will stymie Google’s efforts to shake off a pesky serial patent litigator deemed a “patent troll” by the tech press. That case is SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC.[1] This is the fourth litigated iteration filed by SimpleAir against Google, …
Category: patent litigation
Fed Circuit Watch: PTAB Not Bound by Fed Circuit Precedent
On March 1, 2018, in a fairly convoluted and highly fractured decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was not bound to collateral estoppel principles which form a long line of Fed Circuit case precedence. That case is Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Cirrus Logic, …
Fed Circuit Watch: Fed Circuit Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Antitrust Claim
On February 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a short order refusing jurisdiction over a Walker Process antitrust claim, and transferred the case, Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As a preliminary note, a Walker Process claim is a federal claim under …
Fed Circuit Watch: Pre-Institution Disclaimer Creates Estoppel for Patent Owner
On January 24, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,[1] holding that the patent owner’s pre-IPR-institution statutory disclaimer resulting in an adverse judgment has the effect of estoppel against the patent owner. The facts are as follows. Smith & Nephew filed an IPR against …
Fed Circuit Watch: Time-Bar in IPR Institution Petition is Appealable
One January 8, 2018, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit issued Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp.,[1] in which the en banc panel held the PTAB decision to institute or not an inter partes review based on whether the petition was timely can be appealed through judicial review. Specifically, the issue was whether …
Patent Venue Post-TC Heartland Begins to Take Shape
Back in May 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in T.C. Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,[1] that patent venue selection was limited to the defendant’s state of incorporation or principal place of business, as defined by the patent venue statute, 35 U.S.C. §1400(b). The practical effect sharply curtailed the Eastern District of …
SCOTUS Watch: Oil States Oral Hearing Preview
On November 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group.[1] Certiorari was granted earlier this year. The sole question presented is whether the inter partes reviews – adversarial proceedings held before the United States …
USPTO Designates Assignor Estoppel Case as Precedential Authority
On August 1, 2017, the USPTO designated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board case as precedential authority. This case was decided four years ago, on October 25, 2013. That case, Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding System Ltd.[1], held that the doctrine of assignor estoppel is not an exception to inter partes review (IPR).[2] …
SCOTUS Watch: Supreme Court Redefines the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine
By Brent T. Yonehara On May 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.[1], reversing the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the scope of the patent exhaustion doctrine, also known as the first sale doctrine, and unequivocably stated in its opinion that “a patentee’s decision to …
SCOTUS Watch: TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC
By Brent T. Yonehara On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an important ruling, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S.___ (2017), in patent venue, and specifically limited the ability of patent litigation plaintiffs to file in nearly any U.S. District Court in the country, and held a defendant …