NY Patent Decisions Blog

Visit the Full Blog

NYPatentDecisionsBlog.com is a source for the latest patent decisions from the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The blog is authored by Patterson Belknap’s Patent Litigation practice group, whose members are highly experienced trial attorneys with extensive technical knowledge. Many have advanced scientific degrees and industry experience in fields such as communications, electrical and electro-optical technology, semiconductor technology, metallurgical engineering, chemistry and biochemistry. The team represents consumer products, electrical and software, medical device, mechanical, and pharmaceutical companies in a broad range of patent litigation matters, including district court cases, PTO and PTAB trial proceedings, patent licensing and contractual disputes concerning patent rights.

Judge Sweet Holds “Transmucosal” Delivery Does Not Require Mucosal Membrane Absorption

On January 22, 2019, Judge Robert W. Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) issued a claim construction opinion in Ferring B.V. v. Serenity Pharm., LLC following a Markman hearing.  Plaintiffs Ferring (“Ferring”) moved for claim construction of disputed preamble claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,405,203 (the “’203 Patent”) and 7,579,321 (the “’321 Patent”), two patents owned by Defendants Serenity (“Serenity”).


Judge Koeltl Holds Facebook Systems are Not “Main Stream”

On August 11, 2018, Judge Koeltl (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of three patents alleged to read on Facebook’s “News Feed” “Timeline,” and “Activity Log” functionalities.[1]  Plaintiff Mirror Worlds Techs., LLC (“Mirror Worlds”) owns the three patents.


Judge Furman Stays Case Involving Possible Direct Competitors Pending IPR

On August 8, 2018, Judge Jesse M. Furman (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Synaptive Medical, Inc.’s (“Synaptive”) motion to stay proceedings pending inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patent-in-suit.  Plaintiff Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. (“KSEA”) sued Synaptive, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,468,360 (“the ‘360 patent”).  Less than a month after filing its answer, Synaptive petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for IPR on the validity of the ‘360 patent.  The motion to stay was filed 19 days later.  The PTAB granted the Petition while the stay motion was pending.  Discovery, infringement and invalidity contentions, and claim construction have not yet begun in the case.


Judge Román Holds Storage Units Don’t Hold Water for Patent Venue Purposes

On May 24, 2018, Judge Nelson S. Román granted Defendant United States Endoscopy Group, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3).  On August 13, 2013, Plaintiffs CDx Diagnostic, Inc., Shared Medical Resources, LLC, and CDx Medical IP, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Defendant and various unidentified John Does, alleging infringement of Plaintiffs’ patents.  During discovery, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue in light of the recent Supreme Court case TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). 


Judge Oetken Lifts Stay on 1 of 5 IPR’ed Patents

On April 5, 2018, Judge Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Rovi Guides Inc.’s (“Rovi”) motion to lift a stay related to U.S. Patent No. 8,122,034 (“the ’034 patent”), only one of five patents at issue in a case that was stayed pending completion of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. 


When Does “On” Mean “On”? Judge Netburn Holds That It Depends.

On September 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn (S.D.N.Y.) issued a claim construction ruling on, among other things, the construction of the word “on” across four different patents directed to semiconductor lasers.  In three of the four patents, the court concluded that the term on means “‘directly on or directly connected to the other element or layer, or intervening elements or layers may be present.’”


Judge Oetken sua sponte Stays Case Pending Ex Parte Reexamination after Three Previous Denials

On August 2, 2017, Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff Infinity Headwear & Apparel, LLC’s (“Infinity”) motion for summary judgment as to patent infringement, false patent marking and false advertising and denied Defendant Franco & Sons, Inc.’s (“Franco”) motions objecting to Magistrate Judge Ellis’s orders.  However, Judge Oetken sua sponte stayed the patent infringement claim in view of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)’s recent decision affirming the ex parte reexamination rejection of the asserted claims.


Judge Swain Finds a “Book” by Any Other Cover is Still Not a “Camera”

Pro se Plaintiff Chikezie Ottah (“Plaintiff”) sued fifteen automobile companies for patent infringement alleging that defendants’ car mounted cameras infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 (“the ’840 patent”) entitled “Book Holder.”  Five of the defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and another five defendants moved for summary judgment of non-infringement.  On February 1, 2017, Judge Laura Taylor Swain (S.D.N.Y.) granted both motions.


Judge Oetken Holds that Amendments Made During Ex Parte Reexamination Are not Effective Until Grant of Reissue Patent

On September 26, 2016, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) denied defendant Jay Franco & Sons’ (“Franco”) motion to dismiss, granted plaintiff Infinity Headwear & Apparel’s (“Infinity”) motion for leave to amend to assert additional claims, and laid out the Court’s construction of the disputed claim terms.  Infinity alleged that Franco infringed claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 15-16 and 18-20 of U.S. patent No. 8,864,544 (“the ‘544 patent”), entitled “Hooded Blanket and Stuffed Toy Combination.”