Please join us on Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss two recent patent rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
This case is an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware involving patents and jurisdiction. The patents cover skin care products and are owned by the University of Massachusetts (UMass). UMass sued L’Oréal S.A. and L’Oréal USA for patent infringement. L’Oréal S.A. is based in France and, as such, moved to dismiss the action on the ground that Delaware lacked personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion without permitting UMass to conduct jurisdictional discovery. With the case then proceeding only against L’Oréal USA, the district court addressed the patents at issue. The district court issued a claim construction ruling, and, relying on that construction, held another limitation of the claim indefinite. On that basis, the court entered a final judgment of invalidity against UMass. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that UMass was entitled to jurisdictional discovery and vacated the dismissal of L’Oréal S.A. The Federal Circuit then rejected the district court’s claim construction and vacated the indefiniteness ruling, remanding for further proceedings. Click here for the case.
Kaufman’s now-expired patent describes and claims methods for using a computer to automatically generate an end-user interface for working with the data in a relational database. Kaufman sued Microsoft United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for patent infringement, asserting Microsoft’s making and selling of its Dynamic Data product infringed his patent. A jury found Microsoft liable and awarded $7 million in damages. The district court upheld the verdict against Microsoft’s post-judgment challenges and denied Kaufman’s motion to amend the judgment to include prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of Microsoft’s post-judgment motions and reversed the denial of prejudgment interest. Microsoft failed to preserve its challenge to claim construction with respect to the phrase “automatically generating,” and failed to establish that the district court erred in its claim construction or that the jury’s verdict was not supported by substantial evidence. Click here for the case.
Mark Goldstein, a partner at SoCal IP Law Group LLP, will lead the discussion.