Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Proffered by Patent Owner Deemed Insufficient to Establish Nexus

A recent dissent by Chief Judge Moore of the Federal Circuit in Range of Motion Prods., LLC v. Armaid Co., Inc. takes aim at the Federal Circuit’s “plainly dissimilar” approach to analyzing design patent infringement, contending that the test incorrectly shifts the focus away from the overall similarity between the claimed and accused designs.

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.