Westlaw Topical Highlights: Intellectual Property, August 23, 2016

August 23, 2016

 REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji

REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji

Westlaw Topical Highlights for Intellectual Property provides summaries of significant federal court decisions and legislative and administrative activities affecting Intellectual Property law. A Westlaw subscription is required to access the documents linked from this page.

Pleading: The plausibility pleading standard applied to patent infringement cases.  Robern, Inc. v. Glasscrafters, Inc. 2016 WL 3951726 (D.N.J.) The district court held, as a matter of first impression, that the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility pleading standard applied to patent infringement cases. Therefore, the owner of a patent related to mirrored medicine cabinets failed to state a patent infringement claim based on failure to meet the plausibility standard. The complaint did not list the accused products which allegedly infringed the patent. The complaint made no attempt to describe the alleged infringement, and failed to relate factual assertions to the pertinent claims in the patent. 2016 WL 3951726 (The full-text of the rest of the Topical Highlights is available within Thomson Reuters Westlaw, subscription required).      

Computers and Electronics: In inter partes review, PTAB did not clearly explain common sense presumption with respect to prior art, which led to finding of patent’s obviousness.  Arendi S.A.R.L., Appellant v. Apple Inc., Google Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC, Appellees 2016 WL 4205964 (C.A.Fed.)

Industrial Equipment: Two individuals should have been listed as inventors on patent related to system and method for removing volatile vapors from containers.  Vapor Point LLC v. Moorhead 2016 WL 4205959 (C.A.Fed. (Tex.))

Assignments and Licensing: Assignor of patent related to airport vehicular gate entry access system lacked standing to sue United States for alleged infringement.  Haddad v. United States 2016 WL 3886291 (Fed.Cl.)

Venue: Forum selection clause providing for jurisdiction in the courts of Australia was mandatory.  Moose Toys Pty, Ltd v. Creative Kids Far East Inc. 2016 WL 3919655 (S.D.N.Y.)