Litigation News

CAFC affirmed PTAB ruling that DraftKings failed to prove unpatentability of AG 18 LLC's gaming patent claim 18 in inter partes review. The '205 patent covers location-based restrictions on networked gaming. PTAB invalidated claims 1-17 and 19-30 but upheld claim 18. CAFC rejected DraftKings' arguments that PTAB abused discretion by refusing late-raised prior art combination and that collateral estoppel applied based on other invalidated claims.

Google petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court challenging USPTO's "settled expectations" doctrine that limits late-stage inter partes review (IPR) challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Google argues patents should remain open to IPR challenges regardless of age or reliance. The case centers on a 2010 VirtaMove patent. Google contends limiting late-stage IPR harms innovation, while opponents argue the doctrine restores confidence in patent durability after years of business reliance and investment.

Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma concerning generic drug "skinny labeling" and induced patent infringement standards. Justices appeared skeptical of creating new inducement rules, expressing concern about harming the generic pharmaceutical industry following the Federal Circuit's 2024 decision. The case involves whether Hikma's marketing statements for its generic Vascepa product actively induce infringement of Amarin's cardiovascular patents, with broad implications for Hatch-Waxman Act balance and generic drug accessibility.

Federal Circuit vacated PTAB's obviousness determination in Federal Express v. Qualcomm, finding PTAB failed to consider Federal Express's arguments regarding patent claims. Court held that challenges to PTAB's real party in interest determination are unreviewable under § 314(d). Case involves Federal Express's U.S. Patent No. 8,766,797 for shipment tracking systems. Qualcomm filed IPR petition without listing Roambee as real party in interest. Case remanded for PTAB to properly consider patentability arguments.

Supreme Court will hear Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., addressing whether generic drug manufacturers can face inducement patent infringement liability based on marketing practices under "skinny label" approvals. The case involves Hikma's generic version of Amarin's Vascepa drug and questions whether compliance with FDA-approved labeling provides safe harbor from inducement claims, even if other conduct encourages infringing uses.

Fortress Iron sued Digger Specialties for patent infringement over a vertical cable railing system. DSI identified omitted Chinese co-inventors Lin and Huang who contributed solutions during prototype development. Fortress named only its own employees as inventors. The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity, ruling that omitted co-inventor Huang was a "party concerned" requiring notice under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b). Since Fortress couldn't locate Huang for inventorship correction, the patent remained invalid for failure to name all inventors.

The U.S. International Trade Commission ruled for Apple against Masimo's bid to reinstate an import ban on Apple Watches. The ITC declined to review a judge's March ruling that Apple's redesigned watches don't infringe Masimo's blood-oxygen patents. Masimo can appeal to the Federal Circuit. The dispute stems from Masimo's accusations that Apple stole pulse-oximetry technology. Apple previously removed blood-oxygen features to avoid a December 2023 import ban, then reintroduced updated technology.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office invalidated all claims of two TOPCon solar cell patents asserted by Trina Solar against Canadian Solar subsidiaries. Trina had filed patent infringement complaints in U.S. district court against three Canadian Solar units and initiated proceedings in China seeking significant monetary damages for alleged infringement of two other TOPCon technology patents. Canadian Solar faces multiple patent challenges from various solar technology companies across different jurisdictions.

The US International Trade Commission terminated Masimo's case seeking a second import ban on redesigned Apple Watches, ruling Apple's reworked blood-oxygen monitoring technology doesn't infringe Masimo's patents. This follows a 2021 patent dispute where ITC initially banned Apple Watches, forcing Apple to redesign the feature. Masimo can appeal to the Federal Circuit. Separately, a federal jury awarded Masimo $634 million against Apple in November for patent infringement.

The U.S. International Trade Commission ruled for Apple, declining to review a judge's March decision that Apple's redesigned Apple Watches do not infringe Masimo's blood-oxygen reading patents. This closes Masimo's bid to reinstate an import ban on Apple's Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches. Masimo can appeal to the Federal Circuit. The companies remain in litigation over patent infringement and trade-secret theft, with Masimo winning $634 million in a separate November patent trial.