(Informal 1-2 line summaries, which certainly should not be relied upon for legal or other research purposes)
-
- 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.").
-
- A very short mandamus opinion wherein Intellectual Ventures II succeeds in opposing transfer out from WDTX, CAFC iterating through various challenges to the factor analysis, but finding support for the DCT's analysis in each case ("Zebra fails to point to
any specific errors in the court’s findings and instead argues that these gains in judicial economy are not sufficient
to justify overriding any inconvenience to the parties and
witnesses in keeping this case in WDTX.").
-
- CAFC affirms a summary judgment of noninfringement for patents involving multimedia content distribution as there was no "genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the accused products had the claimed
“user identifier” or “user information” required to be attached to the data." ("Cellspin did not present evidence of any other product feature as satisfying the “user identifier” or “user information” element (in the various claim limitations). It follows that the district court correctly granted summary judgment of noninfringement because Cellspin did not create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Fitbit, Fossil, and Garmin’s products “apply,” “attach,” or “store” a “user
identifier” or “user information.”"). CAFC considers other patents and other limitations, but repeatedly comes to similar conclusions regarding noninfringement based upon unmet limitations. Ergo, affirmed.
-
- CAFC affirms this obviousness IPR invalidity decision for packet filtering patents specifically proposing "an improved way of detecting “[n]etwork threats,” such as “viruses, malware, [and] large volumes of network traffic designed to overwhelm network resources,” and compiling “logs” of information about such threats." Construing the claim term "responsive to", the PTAB inferred obviousness in view of the cited references. CAFC agrees with the construction and the analysis ("We hold that the Board did construe “responsive to” in the respect at issue and that the Board was correct in understanding the “responsive to” phrase and the “responsive to” limitation to allow the “applying” and “communicating” steps to be performed in reaction to a determination that a packet satisfies a packet-filtering rule based on network-threat indicators as well as other criteria. Under that construction, the Board had substantial evidence to find that Sourcefire taught the limitation, and its determination of obviousness is correct on that basis."). In its analysis, CAFC reiterates its construction trend for causal action ("As a matter of ordinary and customary meaning, if an action is taken in reaction to the satisfaction of a rule with two criteria, then the action is taken “based on” each of the two criteria. We have recognized this common English-language point in a recent opinion."). Finding that the reference discloses the features of the criteria for this construction, CAFC affirms.
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.
