Author Archives: finneganblogadmin

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – January 2017

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – December 2016

Authors: Caitlin O’Connell
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Golden Bridge Technology v. Apple, No. 16-1537, Courtroom 201

In this appeal arising from the N.D. Cal., the Federal Circuit is tasked with deciding whether Octane Fitness effectively overturned Shum v. Intel Corp. on the issue of awarding costs when there is more than one “prevailing party.”  Golden Bridge argues that Shum established the type of “overly restrictive” framework that Octane Fitness rejected and that the district court judge should have discretion in awarding costs.  Apple argues that Octane Fitness only addressed the “exceptional case” standard and is thus inapplicable. Continue reading

Graphical Indicator Patent Gets “Definite” Win Under § 112

Authors: Shayda Shahbazi
Editor: Kevin D. Rodkey

In Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International, Ltd., No. 16-1449 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision that the claim term “visually negligible” rendered the claims indefinite.

Sonix brought suit against Publications International, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,328,845, which is directed to using a “graphical indicator” to encode information on the surface of an object that can be read using an optical device to output additional information. The asserted claims of the ’845 patent recite that the indicator is “visually negligible.” The district court granted summary judgment, finding the term “visually negligible” indefinite, concluding that it relied on the user’s perception with no objective standard to measure the scope of the term. Continue reading

Tagged

Procedural Missteps Lead to Default Judgment

Authors: Thomas J. Sullivan
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer

In United Construction Products, Inc. v. Tile Tech, Inc., No. 2016-1392 (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of default judgment against Tile Tech. The panel noted that, throughout the course of the litigation, Tile Tech repeatedly failed to comply with discovery requests—including an order to compel. Applying Ninth Circuit precedent on default judgments, the Court found that four of the five Malone factors favored dismissal: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the lower court’s need to manage its docket without routine noncompliance; (3) Tile Tech’s failure to comply with discovery requests prejudicing the plaintiff’s ability to adjudicate the matter fairly; and (4) the lack of availability of less drastic sanctions. The Court held that the last factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits rather than dismissal by default judgment—always weighed against default judgment. Continue reading

Tagged ,