Home Isn’t Where the Servers Are: Federal Circuit Holds that the Presence of Google Servers Does Not Establish Venue
In Re: Google LLC, Appeal No. 2019-126 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020)
The Federal Circuit has ordered the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to dismiss or transfer Super Interconnect Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00463-JRG for lack of venue, because Google LLC, which contracted with internet service providers (ISPs) within the district to host its servers, had no employee or agent regularly conducting its business there.
Indefinitely Not: Federal Circuit Rules that the PTAB Cannot Cancel Claims for Indefiniteness During an IPR
The Federal Circuit has held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may not cancel claims as indefinite in an IPR proceeding.
In 2016, Prisua Engineering Corp. sued Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and other Samsung entities for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 (“Video Enabled Digital Devices for Embedding User Data in Interactive Applications”). Samsung then petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review of the ‘591 patent, asserting that claims 1–4, 8, and 11—which are directed to methods and apparatuses for “generating a displayable edited video data stream from an original video data stream”—were unpatentable.
A User’s Guide to Prior Art: PTAB Holds That a User Manual May Qualify As a Printed Publication
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01437 (Jan. 23, 2020)
In a recent inter partes review decision invalidating a patent disclosing systems and methods for filtering network data transfers, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that a user manual was a publicly available printed publication that qualified as prior art.
No Do-Overs: Federal Circuit Denies Unsuccessful IPR Petitioner’s Request for a New Hearing in Light of Arthrex
Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2117 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 28, 2020)
The Federal Circuit has held that a party that petitioned for inter partes review before the Patent Trial Appeal Board and subsequently obtained an unfavorable ruling cannot now invoke Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. to vacate and remand the Board’s decision for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.
Federal Circuit Holds That Names and Logos Matter in the Design-Infringement Analysis
Columbia Sportswear is the owner of U.S. Patent D657,093 (“the ‘093 patent”), a design patent directed at the “ornamental design of a heat reflective material.” The claimed design is a wave pattern used in sleeping bags, boots, pants, gloves, and jackets. Columbia sued Seirus Innovative Accessories in the District of Oregon for infringement of the’093 patent and a utility patent. Seirus makes outdoor apparel products lined with its HeatWave fabric, and its design features waves of varying pattern and orientation, interrupted by repeated use of the “Seirus” logo. Continue reading…