IP Newsflash

Needless to say, a finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285 can have crippling consequences. Just ask Rembrandt Technologies, LP, which recently was slapped with an order to pay the prevailing defendants in a consolidated infringement action roughly $46 million in attorney fees and nearly $5 million in costs.

On Monday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Northern District of California jury verdict that Apple did not infringe two patents owned by GPNE Corp. GPNE had sued Apple for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,570,954 and 7,792,432, which are directed to a two-way paging system that operates independently from a telephone system.

On July 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Payne in the Eastern District of Texas issued an order prohibiting a plaintiff from making disparaging remarks about the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and its examiners. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. brought two cases against LG Electronics, Inc. on September 26, 2014 for infringement of patents relating to tablet and smartphone wireless networking. The patents are part of a portfolio of patents that Core Wireless’ parent company, Conversant Intellectual Property Management Inc., acquired from Nokia Corp. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes with the individual cases remaining active for venue determinations and trial. In the trial for the first case, the jury found that LG had infringed two of the patents-in-suit and that LG had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the patents-in-suit were invalid. The jury awarded Core Wireless $3.5 million. Jury selection for the second case is a new trial was set for September 12, 2016.

On May 26, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Patent Owner Blue Calypso, LLC’s request that the Patent and Trademark Office not publish a certificate cancelling dependent claims 8-12, 14, and 23 of U.S. Patent 7,664,516 (“’516 Patent”) covering a method for peer-to-peer advertising between mobile communication devices. Blue Calypso alleged that the Final Written Decision erred in canceling the aforementioned dependent claims as anticipated when the independent claim from which they depend was not found to be anticipated.