296-1. Federal Circuit Finds Pre-Invention Ideas Not Covered Under Employment IP Assignment Agreement - The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Nos. 20-1399 & 20-1400
Panel: Judges Newman, Moore, and Taranto, with Judge Moore writing the majority opinion and Judge Newman concurring in part and dissenting in part
You should read this case if: you have an
Arthrex challenge not raised before the agency or you have an IPR or CBM with a forum-selection clause issue
The majority opinion in our case of the week is just one paragraph long. But this short precedential decision packs a punch, resolving one important issue and implicating several more.
The issue the Court resolved concerns
Arthrex. The appellant here challenged the Board’s decision in a CBM review on
Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC
, Appeal No. 2019-2164 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2021)
In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit revisited its decision in
Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998), often cited for the proposition that a patentee does not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum merely by sending correspondence asserting patent infringement by a resident of the forum. On the facts presented, the Court found that a patentee’s negotiations with a California-headquartered corporation supported jurisdiction in the Northern District of California for the corporation’s declaratory judgment action, reversing the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Before Judges Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Summary: Patent claims were directed to an abstract idea where the claims failed to recite any structure or concrete actions for achieving the claimed advance and the claimed advance did not the improve the operability of computing devices.
Free Stream Media Corp. sued Alphonso Inc. for patent infringement. Alphonso filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that certain asserted claims are patent ineligible under § 101 because they are directed to the abstract idea of tailored advertising. Free Stream disagreed, characterizing the claims as directed to a specific improvement, namely delivering relevant content (e.g., targeted advertising) from one device to a second device through a “security sandbox,” a security mechanism constraining the actions that applications on a device may take. The district court rejected Alphonso’s argument and denied its motion to di