Who Owns Your Intelligence: A Company Should Explicitly Draft a Continuations-in-Part Clause in an Employment Agreement If It Intends to Retain That Part of a Patent
Recently, the Federal Circuit held that a continuations-in-part is materially different from a continuation in patent assignment. This holding suggests companies to explicitly mention continuations-in-part in its employment agreement with an employee if the companies want to capture any intelligence more than a continuation.
<em>Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp.</em>
In Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., the Federal Circuit held that using machine learning models in new data environments constitutes an abstract idea and lacks patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, equating machine learning models to computers, or computer software, and signaling the need for advancement or innovation if novel applications of machine learning models are to be patentable.
<em>USAA v. PNC Bank</em> Federal Circuit Decision Discussion
This article analyzes the Federal Circuit’s decision in USAA v. PNC Bank, which invalidated PNC’s mobile check-deposit patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It examines the ‘638 patent, PNC’s competing mobile check-deposit technology, and procedural history, focusing on the application of the Alice/Mayo test to determine the patent eligibility of financial technology innovations.
<em>Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Synthego Corp. </em>
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that all claims of the ’001 and the ’034 patents were unpatentable.
<em> Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. </em>
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court ruling, determining that claim 11 of the ‘954 patent and claim 3 of the ‘694 patent were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and remanded for further proceedings.
<em> Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Tech. Int'l Ltd., Inc. </em>
A recent Federal Circuit decision has narrowed the public disclosure requirement for obtaining patents. The requirement now limits what qualifies as “reasonably available to the public” under the prior art requirement for obtaining a patent. A private sale was not found to meet the narrowed requirement.
<em> Tube-Mac Indus., Inc. v. Campbell </em>
The Federal Circuit Court affirmed an Eastern District Court of Virginia’s decision to mandate a correction of inventorship of U.S. Patent 9,376,049 (the “’049 patent”) which added Gary Mackay and Dan Hewson as named inventors.
<em> Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon, Inc. </em>
The Federal Circuit rejected Amazon’s cross-appeal and affirmed the district court ruling, determining that the lower court did not abuse its discretion or make a clear error on Amazon’s inequitable conduct defense.
<em> Naterra Int’l, Inc. v. Bensalem </em>
The Federal Circuit vacated the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of Naterra’s cancellation petition because the Board erred in their decisions regarding the first and third DuPont factors.
<em> AlexSam, Inc., v. MasterCard Int’l Inc. </em>
AlexSam filed a breach of contract claim against MasterCard. The District Court held that the claim was prohibited under the parties’ covenant not to sue. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded based on non-ambiguity in license agreements.
<em>Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc.</em>
In Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., Chutter challenged the validity of Great Concept’s mark, claiming “DANTANNA’S” confuses their mark “DAN TANA,” challenging incontestability, and arguing that “DANTANN’S” was obtained by a false affidavit, so Great Concept’s mark is therefore fraudulent.
<em>Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Scis. Ltd.</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trials and Appeals Board’s decision on the validity of Teleflex’s patent but refused to address whether an in vivo performance of an in vivo method is required to show actual reduction to practice.
<em>Galperti, Inc. v. Galperti S.r.l.</em>
The Federal Circuit vacated the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s dismissal of Galperti Inc.’s fraud charge against Galperti S.r.l., because Galperti Inc. did not need to establish secondary meaning or privity in demonstrating their competitors’ claim’s falsity.
<em>Actelion Pharms. LTD v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.</em>
The Federal Circuit Court issued a precedential decision vacating the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia’s claim construction order and remanded the case to consider extrinsic evidence and its impact on claim construction.
<em>Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd.</em>
The Federal Circuit ruled that the TTAB failed to properly weigh the conceptual and commercial strength of a mark by not considering third-party registrations and by placing the burden to establish non-use on the applicant.
<em>Cosmic Crusaders LLC v. Andrusiek</em>
The Federal Circuit Court ruled in favor of affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in their decision that Andrusiek had sufficient prior use of the same mark that Cosmic Crusaders had registered, thus cancelling Cosmic Crusaders’ registration
<em>Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC</em>
The Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trials and Appeals Board’s decision on Netflix’s asserted prior art reference, holding Netflix did not need to use the “magic words” field of endeavor to identify one in their asserted prior art reference.