RIP Dr. Raymond Damadian. The appellate court that in 1997 confirmed Damadian's victory in a #patent infringement suit against #GeneralElectric is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (#FedCir), not the Second Circuit. See caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-cir… twitter.com/nytimes/status…
Click-to-Call v Ingenio 8/17 #FedCir holds Ing is 315(e)(2) IPR estopped to challenge C’s claim 17 in DCt. SCt decided SAS during proceeding. Ing chose not to seek remand to challenge claim 17 on non-instituted grounds. IPR estoppel is not same as common law collateral estoppel.
Reyna J concurs in judgment (no mandamus). PTO has not "nailed shut" window for filing Requests for Director Rehearing; only "closed for the moment." And Director sua sponte granted review of 2 institution denials. Extraordinary relief not req'd in this "run-of-the-mill action."
Kamstrup v Axioma 8/12 #FedCir affirms IPR decision that K’s claims to flowmeter housing are unpatentable per s102 or 103. No error in construing several claim terms. “Cast in one piece” is product-by-process; no patentable weight. 103 refs are analogous; same field of endeavor.
Hologic v Minerva 8/11 #FedCir on SCt remand affirms that M (assignor’s co) is estopped to challenge validity of H’s patent claim 1. M assigned application claim 31 & warranted its validity (tho M cancelled claim 31 w/o prej irt restriction reqt). Claim 1 not materially broader.
LSI v UMN 8/11 #FedCir affirms IPR determination that U’s claims to data error rate method were NOT anticipated by Tsang published application. Tsang is not s102(e) “by another” prior art bcz Tsang did not invent the relied-on portions; he merely “summarized” UMn’s earlier work.
In re McDonald 8/10 #FedCir affirms PTO rejection of M’s proposed reissue claims (deleting “processor”). Recapture rule bars “Trojan horse” attempt to regain scope intentionally surrendered to overcome s101 eligibility rejection of original claims. Reissue declaration defective.
Thaler v Vidal 8/5/22 #FedCir confirms that an inventor on a patent app must be a human being; AI systems are not humans. Statutory construction issue: plain meaning: Patent Act unambiguously answers question. See 35 USC s100(f) (AIA) (defining inventor as “individual”); s115.
Realtime v Netflix 7/27 #FedCir 2-1 affirms atty fee award to N in CD Cal. action under ct’s inherent equitable power. R “blatantly” gamed/forum-shopped its “tanking” case after Del. magistrate held same pats ineligibile & PTO instituted IPRs. Bad faith. Reyna J: award more fees.