The cases are:
Recentive v Fox Corp 23-2437.OPINION.4-18-2025_2500790
This case presents the question of patent eligibility of four patents directed to the use of machine learning. The patents claim the use of machine learning for the generation of network maps and schedules for television broadcasts and live events.
Appellant Recentive Analytics, Inc. (“Recentive”), the owner of the patents, sued appellees Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, and Fox Sports Productions, LLC (collectively, “Fox”) for infringement. The district court dismissed, concluding that the patents were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm because the patents are directed to the abstract idea of using a generic machine learning technique in a particular environment, with no inventive concept.
Qualcomm v Apple 23-1208.OPINION.4-23-2025_2503159
Qualcomm Incorporated appeals from the final written decision on remand of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Apple Inc. filed two petitions for inter partes review challenging as unpatentable as obvious various claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674, owned by Qualcomm. Each petition asserted a similar pair of grounds, one of which used certain applicant admitted prior art. The Board initially determined that the use of applicant admitted prior art in the ground complied with 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). The Board reached this determination because it concluded that, generally, applicant admitted prior art is “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,” which, under § 311(b), are the “only” references that can form “the basis” of a ground in a petition for inter partes review.
Qualcomm appealed, and this court held that the Board misinterpreted § 311(b), because applicant admitted prior art is not “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,” although it can be used in a petition for inter partes review under particular circumstances. We thus vacated and remanded for the Board to determine whether the applicant admitted prior art in Apple’s petitions formed “the basis” of the ground at issue in violation of § 311(b).
On remand, the Board interpreted the statute and determined that the applicant admitted prior art did not form the basis of the ground. The Board thus concluded that the ground complied with § 311(b). We hold that the Board erred in its interpretation of § 311(b) and in its determination that the ground at issue complied with the statute. Accordingly, we reverse.
North Star v Latham Pool 23-2138.OPINION.4-24-2025_2503943
North Star Technology International Limited and North Star Technology Limited (collectively, North Star) sued Latham Pool Products, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee for alleged infringement of a design patent related to swimming pools. The district court granted Latham’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, reasoning that Latham’s pool is plainly dissimilar to North Star’s design patent. We find no reversible error in the district court’s determinations and affirm its grant of summary judgment of non-infringement.
Angelo Gaz, of Counsel for SoCalIP, will lead the discussion.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.