In a dispute between patent holder B/E Aerospace and C&D Zodiac that was instituted by C&D’s petition for inter partes review of B/E’s patent for saving space in airplanes, the Patent trail and Appeal Board did not err in concluding that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 of…

The federal district court in Tyler, Texas, correctly denied Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.’s (“Core Wireless’s”) motion for judgment as a matter of law that Apple infringed a claim of a Core Wireless patent directed to a means for sending packet data from a mobile station such as a cellular telephone to a cellular system or…

Two patents directed to a method for the electronic trading of stocks, bonds, futures, and options asserted by Trading Technologies International (TTI) against the CQG companies were not directed to an abstract idea and also recited an inventive concept, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. In affirming a federal district…

The federal district court in Tyler, Texas, correctly construed the term “mountable” in a patent for a digital picture frame asserted by Profectus Technology against the manufacturers and sellers of tablet computer devices as “having a feature for mounting,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled (Prospectus Technology LLC v. Huawei…

The federal district court in Houston did not abuse its discretion in enforcing a forum selection clause between Wellogix, on one side, and SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG (collectively, “SAP”) on the other, in holding that trade secret claims brought by Wellogix against SAP were required to be dismissed because they were subject to…

In finding that all of the claims of Cutsforth’s U.S. Patent No. 7,990,018 (“the ’018 patent”) were obvious in light of the prior art, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in failing to explain its reasoning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided (Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., January 22,…

In awarding plaintiff Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (“CSIRO”) $16,243,067 in damages for Cisco Systems’ (“Cisco’s”) infringement of CSIRO’s U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 (“’069 patent”), the federal district court in Tyler, Texas, erred by not accounting for the ’069 patent’s standard-essential status and in its reasoning for discounting a relevant license agreement, the U.S….