• CAFC vacates decision of ED Va in Virginia Innovation v. Samsung

    The CAFC did not affirm ED Va in the Virginia Innovations case, giving appellant
    Innovations a victor.


    Plaintiff and appellant Virginia Information Sciences,
    Inc. (VIS) appeals from stipulated final judgments of noninfringement
    and invalidity entered in favor of Samsung
    Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
    and Samsung Telecommunications America LLC (collectively,
    Samsung) by the United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Virginia in two consolidated patent
    infringement actions. Because (1) the intrinsic evidence
    before us does not support the district court’s construction
    of a claim term central to the parties’ dispute, (2) the
    specification of the patents-in-suit suggests that the term
    has an established understanding in the art, and (3) the
    parties have not sufficiently developed the record with
    regard to that established understanding, we vacate and
    remand for further proceedings.

    Result: ED Va decision–VACATED AND REMANDED

    link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1477.Opinion.6-5-2015.1.PDF

    Some text


    The district
    court adopted Samsung’s reasoning, narrowing its construction
    of “display format” to exclude signals in formats
    that required further deconstruction or reassembly at the
    external monitor in order to be displayed by the monitor.
    VIS SJ II, 2014 WL 1685932 at *10.

    This was error. Nothing in the specification mentions—much
    less prohibits—the “deconstruction” or
    “reassembly” of video signals at the external display, key
    components of the district court’s ultimate construction of
    the term “display format.” Nor do the parties identify
    anything in the prosecution history suggesting that the
    meaning of “display format” is tied to the absence of any
    “deconstruction,” “decoding,” “reassembly,” or other
    processing of the converted video signal by the external
    monitor. Indeed, these terms appear to have been introduced
    by VIS when analogizing a pre-assembled nursery
    crib to compressed video signals in its summary judgment
    briefs. J.A. 2813, 4919–20.

    Continue Reading ...
  • American Well sues Teladoc over alleged patent infringement – FierceHealthIT

    American Well sues Teladoc over alleged patent infringement
    FierceHealthIT
    In a statement regarding the lawsuit, obtained by the Boston Business Journal, Teladoc CEO Jason Gorevic says his company believes the patents are invalid, adding that the action by American Well is in response to Teladoc’s petition with the U.S
    American Well Accuses Teladoc of Patent Infringement in LawsuitiHealthBeat
    Can telehealth be protected by a patent?mHealthNews

    all 3 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...
  • Human Events gets it wrong on patent reform

    Brian McNicoll at Human Events gets facts wrong on patent reform when he writes:


    It would be if Congress passed the PATENT Act, legislation from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., that seeks to limit patent trolling and bring some order and predictability to the patent enforcement process.

    The PATENT Act, originating in the Senate, is not legislation “from” Congressman Goodlatte, who pushed the Innovation Act, which is significantly different from the PATENT Act, including as to the presumption of “loser pays” and alterations to “inter partes review.” [IPR]

    McNicoll does bring up a story involving IPRs:


    Securus has filed 12 lawsuits against 19 competitors in the last decade, most of which have resulted in settlements by companies that considered it cheaper to pay up than litigate. But one, Global Tel*Link Corporation, has decided to fight back.

    The firm has begun to file petitions against Securus’ patents with the Patent Trial and Appeals Board. It claims Securus’ patents “mimic available consumer products, like Apple’s FaceTime, and a ‘range of other technology’ that was well known long before Securus’ patent applications were filed.”

    McNicoll does not bring up the IPRs of Butamax against Gevo, or those of Kyle Bass against drug companies.

    Continue Reading ...