Lack of standing affirmed because patent co-owner refused to join suit.

  Case: STC.UNM v. Intel Co., No. 2013-1241 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from D.N.M. Before Newman, Rader and Dyk. Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appealed district court’s dismissal of patent infringement suit due to lack of standing. CAFC affirmed. Standing: Because patent co-owner refused to join the suit, the CAFC …

Cuban cigar company has a statutory cause of action to petition for cancellation of trademark registrations under the Lanham Act, and neither issue nor claim preclusion bars the petition.

  Case: Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., Inc., No. 2013-1465 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Cancellation No. 92025859. Before Rader, Taranto and Hughes. Procedural Posture: Appellant appealed TTAB’s grant of summary judgment of no standing in cancellation proceedings. CAFC …

Consumer advocacy group lacked standing to appeal PTAB’s patentability decision.

  Case: Consumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., No. 2013-1377 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination No. 95/000,154. Before Prost, Rader and Hughes. Procedural Posture: Third-party requester appealed PTAB decision affirming patentability. CAFC dismissed the appeal because the appellant did …

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment of no damages, found that the district court construed one of Apple’s patents too narrowly, affirmed the finding that Motorola was not entitled to an injunction with respect to its standards essential patent and remanded to the district court to reconsider Apple’s request for injunctive relief.

  Case: Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility Inc., No. 2012-1548,-1549 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. Before Rader (dissenting in part), Prost (concurring in part and dissenting in part) and Reyna. Procedural Posture: Apple accused Motorola of infringing its patents and Motorola, …

Only the patent owner, not the assignor, has the right to appeal an adverse decision of the Board in an inter partes reexamination to the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. § 141.

  Case: Vaillancourt v. Becton Dickinson and Company, No. 2013-1408 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Before Rader, Linn and Taranto. Procedural Posture: The Board affirmed the rejection of all claims of a patent during inter partes reexamination. Appellant Vaillancourt previously …