For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, January 22, 2018, we will discuss the following cases:
WI-FI One LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, (CAFC. January 8, 2018) (available here). Under the AIA, if a litigant is served with a lawsuit for patent infringement, they have one year to request an IPR proceeding from the Patent Office. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) states that the decision to institute an IPR by the director of the PTO “shall be final and nonappealable.” However, the statute is unclear as to whether the time bar provision of the statute can be appealed. In Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2015) a panel of the CAFC held that the time bar provision was not appealable. The CAFC en banc now overruled that decision.
Dentsply Sirona, Inc. v. Net32, Inc., (M.D. Pa., January 11, 2018) (available here). Dentsply sells dental equipment at a premium price in the US. Net32 sells all kinds of dental supplies both in the US and abroad. Net32 takes precautions to make sure everything they sell is approved by the FDA, but does not stop to make sure all dental supplies are actually genuine (e.g. if a product was actually created by Dentsply or is a knock off). Dentsply motioned for a preliminary injunction to stop Net32 from selling dental supplies it believed infringed its trademark rights. In denying the motion the court noted how long Dentsply waited to file the motion as well as its failure to point out exactly what it believed infringed its rights.
All are invited to join us on January 22, 2017, at noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Elisha Manzur by 9 am Monday morning.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.