CAFC Patent Cases, 12/29/20 – 1/11/21

CAFC Patent Cases, 12/29/20 – 1/11/21

Client Alerts

Contributors

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions

  1. SIMIO, LLC v. FLEXSIM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS [OPINION] (2020-1171, 12/29/20) (Prost, Clevenger, Stoll)
    Prost, J. Affirming dismissal because claims were ineligible under § 101. “Simply applying the already-widespread practice of using graphics instead of programming to the environment of object-oriented simulations is no more than an abstract idea.” Also affirming denial of motion for leave to amend the complaint.
  2. SIMO HOLDINGS INC. v. HONG KONG UCLOUDLINK NETWORK [OPINION] (2019-2411, 1/5/21) (O’Malley, Wallach, Taranto)
    Taranto, J. Reversing summary judgment of infringement and holding that defendant is entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement. The preamble of the asserted claim was limiting and the Court interpreted the phrase “a plurality of” in the preamble. “In sum, we conclude, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, that ‘a plurality of memory, processors, programs, communication circuitry, authentication data stored on a subscribed identify module (SIM) card and/or in memory and non-local calls database’ requires ‘a plurality of’ each component in the list, including ‘non-local calls database.’” Although it had full opportunity to do so, patentee failed to identify evidence that created a triable issue of fact under the correct construction and the Court held “that reversal of the denial of [defendant’s] motion for summary judgment of noninfringement is warranted.”
  3. ABS GLOBAL, INC. v. CYTONOME/ST, LLC [OPINION] (2019-2051, 1/6/21) (Prost, Moore, Stoll)
    Stoll, J. Dismissing appeal of IPR as moot. Because defendant “voluntarily ceased its efforts to enforce its intellectual property right against the products at issue in the district court litigation, the voluntary cessation doctrine governs the mootness inquiry. Applying the voluntary cessation framework, we first conclude on this record that [patentee] has demonstrated that it cannot reasonably be expected to resume its enforcement efforts against [defendant]. Shifting the burden of production to [defendant], we then determine that [defendant] has not offered any evidence of current activity or plans to engage in activity that would subject [defendant] to infringement liability under the [asserted] patent… Because the record demonstrates that there is no longer a live case or controversy between the parties, [defendant’s] IPR appeal is moot.” Prost, J. dissented.

Contributors