Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – July, 2016

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – May 2016

Author: Matt Karas*
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer

Thursday July 7, 2016

 IPLearn-Focus v. Microsoft, No. 15-1863, Courtroom 402

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will determine if the district court properly applied the two-part Alice test in finding that three of IPLearn’s patents were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  IPLearn claims that its patents, directed at sensors and associated software that interpret and respond to human movements, “interconnect[] particular novel combinations of sensor hardware and sensing software capabilities to deliver new and improved human-computer interfaces,” and therefore overcome the Alice test.

Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, No. 15-2073, Courtroom 402

Arendi appeals the PTAB’s finding in an inter partes review that several claims of its patent, which concerns information searching based on document analysis, to be unpatentable as obvious. Arendi argues that the Board erred by making a common sense presumption that searching using a telephone number would happen when performing the operation of “‘[a]dd to address book’ of the telephone number.” It argues that common sense may not be used to “fill a hole” in the evidence unless it was indisputably within common knowledge, and in this case, a reasonable factfinder informed of the ordinary skill in the art would not have found this to be within common knowledge.

Friday July 8, 2016

Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor, No. 15-1329, Courtroom 402

Fairchild appeals the district court’s finding that it infringed Power Integrations’ patents by intending for its resale customers to sell products containing infringing computer chips in the United States. Fairchild primarily claims that Power Integrations failed to present evidence that showed it actively induced infringement, and says instead that it took no “actions intended to induce resale” of infringing products. In addition, Power Integrations is cross-appealing a finding that it infringed one of Fairchild’s patents, as well as the denial of a new trial on the issue of whether Fairchild induced infringement.

 

*Matt Karas was a Summer Associate at Finnegan

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: