(Informal 1-2 line summaries, which certainly should not be relied upon for legal or other research purposes)
-
- CAFC affirms this IPR appeal wherein the Board found claims for "managing access to telecommunication networks" to be obvious over three references ("Obhan as modified by Shatzkamer and Budka . . . The Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made
this modification to increase granularity and thus provide
more specific access control"). Here, appellant argues that: 1) Obhan doesn't teach the "access request" limitations; 2) Obhan doesn't teach the "deny access time interval limitation; and 3) "the Board erred in determining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Obhan and Shatzkamer." CAFC dismisses 1), for while appellant's arguments are plausible, "under the substantial evidence standard of review, the existence of another plausible conclusion does not compel us to determine the Board’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence." CAFC likewise disagrees that appellant's emphasis upon "if" rather than "responsive to" in the Board's opinion is relevant ("KPN has not made the requisite showing that there is a material difference between the if/responsive to claim language such that the alleged error affected the Board’s decision and is thus harmful. Nor do we discern how this purported error could be harmful."). Regarding 2), CAFC initially dismisses some newly raised arguments ("Absent exceptional circumstances, we do not consider arguments on appeal that a party failed to advance in the tribunal under review."), then again finds substantial evidence for the Board's consideration of the arguments below ("KPN’s argument is not more than a restatement of its previous argument that Obhan does not
teach consulting the good till time in deciding whether to
grant a terminal access to the network. As already discussed, the Board determined that user access at each corridor “depends on the value of the good till time,” and thus the good till time is consulted when granting a terminal access even when that terminal seeks access at a different corridor than it previously had."). Regarding 3), CAFC finds the Board's reliance upon motivations presented below to be sufficient ("KPN does not dispute that Petitioners argued before the Board that increased granularity supplies a motivation to combine"). Ergo, affirmed.
-
- In this IPR appeal for an electronic smoking pipe, the Board found lack of support for an amendment and the existing claims
invalid under 102. CAFC finds substantial evidence in the record for both the 102 analysis and the lack of written description analysis. Regarding the latter, the newly proposed term "“ambient air inlet" was construed as meaning "an aperture that excludes air passage through the first pipe section." As CAFC finds "[n]othing in the specification affirmatively excludes the existence of an ambient air hole in the first pipe section 102 or a hole in the connector 145", CAFC agrees that there's inadequate support for the term.
-
- In this brief opinion, CAFC agrees with the DCT's noninfringement finding, as "[t]he claim language requires the system to begin transmission in response to input from a pet, not begin a process of transmission. It is undisputed that, when the Furbo operates, the input from the pet transmits a notification to the user’s phone, but an intervening step by the user is required to instigate the actual transmission of live video or audio . . . Tomofun’s expert, in unrebutted testimony, opined that transmission is responsive to the user clicking on the notification . . . The claim language
requires that the pet’s activity begins transmission, not
that the pet’s activity simply causes transmission" (emphasis in original).
-
- CAFC continues to houseclean, with no substantial opinions. This brief order, though, provides a reminder that eBay "rejected . . . a “broad” and “categorical rule” in deciding motions for injunctive relief in the context of patent infringement." Here, CAFC affirms denial of a preliminary injunction, as plaintiff's "challenge hinges on its argument that “the district court here simply had no discretion to require additional harm beyond ongoing infringement VidStream established”" such challenge raising "no substantial question regarding the outcome
of the appeal under governing Supreme Court precedent."
-
- CAFC continues its "Mandamus/Rule 42b dismissals/Rule 36 affirmance" housecleaning. "Exciting", he said, ironically. Here, CAFC affirms a refusal to transfer out of EDTX, agreeing with the DCT that the defendant didn't provide enough detail for why the "extraordinary remedy" of mandamus was warranted ("The district court, however, concluded that Zepp had failed to show the location of that subsidiary made CDCA the clearly more convenient forum. First, the district court found Zepp failed to identify any particular record custodian in CDCA and found that all the identified evidence is electronically stored and therefore is readily accessible in any other district. Second, the district court noted that “Zepp has only broadly asserted all relevant witnesses are in California,” Appx005–006, without specifically identifying individual potential witnesses in its transfer motion. Third, the court found only a “somewhat tenuous local interest[]” in that district, Appx007. We cannot say that these findings were clearly incorrect.").
James Skelley is a solo practitioner based in Mountain View, California since 2015, focusing primarily upon technology transactions and intellectual property procurement. James' practice also serves as an "incubator" for new legal service technologies / methodologies and a "living example" of their application. To this end, James regularly partners with larger law firms and with his clients so as to improve the practice of intellectual property law.
- Utility / Design / PCT Patent Prosecution
- Open Source Diligence
- Technology Transactions (typically as a team)
- Litigation / Inter Partes Review Support (typically as a team)
- James tends NOT to handle low-volume trademark work (though referrals are available)
- USPTO - #59458 - 10/16/2006
- California - #257829 - 12/01/2008
- District Columbia - #1014986 - 08/05/2013
- James is available by email, 8x8 hangout, and in-person meetups in the Valley.
- Email is typically the best way to reach James.
- Machine Learning / Robotics
- Cryptograpy / Cryptocurrency / Smart Contracts
- Medical Device
- Computational Biology (primarily modeling and proteomics)
- Signal Processing (primarily wireless and compression)
- Quantum Physics (primarily semiconductor) / Electromagnetics (antennae, waveguides, etc.)
- Manufacturing / 3D Printing
- James tends NOT to handle pure chemistry applications (though referrals are available), however James HAS handled matters involving computational proteomics, cellular modeling, and diagnostic lab protocols
LawMux Bites are (very) short, one-page summaries of various legal concepts, cases, and technologies. As informal summaries, you certainly shouldn't rely upon them as legal advice / for business use, but they can help orient you if you're new to the subject matter.
