The Federal Circuit has just issued an additional decision in this dispute today. We will cover that development further shortly. In a recent decision, the Patent.
We previously published an article discussing patent owner’s due process challenges based on alleged pecuniary interests of the Office and Administrative Patent Judges instituting cases.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Patent licenses, technology transfer agreements, and non-disclosure agreements often include forum selection clauses as a matter of course, and sometimes include an arbitration clause requiring private arbitration of disputes. Petitioners and patent owners both will want to know: Can these clauses preclude a challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)? The federal district courts routinely enforce the parties’ selected forum in patent lawsuits. The PTAB, however, has been reluctant to do so for
inter partes and post-grant review proceedings. The Federal Circuit has not yet ruled on whether the PTAB must directly consider and enforce forum selection clauses. Patent owners seeking to avoid the PTAB may have recourse through the district courts, but results on this path are uncertain. Petitioners have frequently been successful in maintaining challenges at the PTAB, despite prior agreements that include forum se
Earlier this month, in the precedential decision
New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., FKA Bally Gaming, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on the ground that the decision issued after the CAFC’s
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. decision (where the CAFC made administrative patent judges of the Board “inferior officers” under the U.S. Appointments Clause). New Vision is appealing two covered-business method review final written decisions in which the Board held all claims of the patents at issue patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The CAFC’s opinion, delivered by Judge Moore, is short and largely unremarkable. What is more interesting, however, is Judge Newman’s dissent.
Two Casinos Sue Scientific Games Over Shuffle Master Business Practices
4 Min read
A pair of Midwestern riverboat casinos have filed a class action antitrust lawsuit against Las Vegas-based Scientific Games Corporation, alleging monopolistic practices in the sale and marketing of Shuffle Master automatic card shufflers, which hold a dominant market share in that casino-equipment niche.
DraftKings at Casino Queen is one of two Mississippi riverboat casinos suing Shuffle Master parent Scientific Games over allegedly illegal business practices involved with its automatic card shuffler products. (Image: G3Newswire)
The lawsuit was filed by East St. Louis, Illinois’ Casino Queen, Inc., which operates as DraftKings at Casino Queen, and Marquette, Iowa’s Casino Queen Marquette, Inc., which operates under the same name and was once known as the Lady Luck Casino.