“Impact Engine’s petition asked the Supreme Court to clarify if the lodestar of Section 101 patent eligibility is preventing preemption of basic technological or scientific building blocks.”
“Impact Engine的请愿书要求最高法院澄清，第101条专利适格性的核心标准是否旨在阻止对基础技术或科学原理的垄断。”
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for writ of certiorari in several appeals involving intellectual property claims. These denials included yet another Section 101 case seeking clarity on the court’s two-step eligibility test and a suit seeking vacatur of a stipulated settlement for trademark infringement involving a fraudulently procured mark. The Supreme Court also granted a motion by patent owner Cellspin Soft allowing it to file its petition for writ with a supplemental appendix under seal.
周一，美国最高法院驳回了几起涉及知识产权主张的上诉案件中的调取案卷令状申请。这些驳回包括另一个第101条案件，寻求澄清法院的两步资格测试，以及一个诉讼，寻求撤销涉及欺诈性采购商标的商标侵权的规定和解。最高法院还批准了专利所有者Cellspin Soft的一项动议，允许其提交带有密封补充附录的申请令状。
Impact Engine v. Google: No Clarity on Lodestar of Section 101 Patentability Analysis
Impact Engine诉谷歌:第101条可专利性分析的核心标准不明确
In early February, Internet ad platform developer Impact Engine filed its petition for writ to appeal the Federal Circuit’s ruling from last July affirming the invalidation of Impact Engine’s patent claims to web-based advertisement systems under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Reviewing de novo the Southern District of California’s Section 101 rulings at the motion to dismiss and summary judgment stages, the CAFC panel majority found that Impact Engine’s patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of processing user-provided information to create user-tailored outputs, including claims having a project viewer limitation that limited the alleged abstract idea to a specific, discrete implementation, according to Impact Engine.
2月初，互联网广告平台开发商Impact Engine向最高法院提交了调取案卷令状的申请，要求上诉联邦巡回法院去年7月的裁决，确认Impact Engine根据美国法典第35条第101款对基于网络的广告系统的专利主张无效。根据Impact Engine的说法，重新审查加利福尼亚州南区第101条在驳回动议和简易判决阶段的裁决，CAFC专家组多数成员发现Impact Engine的专利权利要求针对处理用户提供的信息以创建用户定制的输出的抽象概念，包括具有项目查看者限制的权利要求，该限制将所谓的抽象概念限制为特定的离散实施。
Dissenting-in-part to the CAFC majority was Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna. Although Judge Reyna concurred with most of the ruling, he disagreed with the majority’s treatment of the project viewer claims. Judge Reyna would have vacated the district court’s summary judgment ruling as to those claims, arguing that the district court did not sufficiently analyze the project viewer limitation under the two-step framework for means-plus-function claims.
联邦巡回上诉法院（CAFC）法官Jimmie Reyna对多数意见提出部分异议。尽管Reyna法官同意大部分裁决，但他不同意大多数人对项目观众索赔的处理。Reyna法官认为，地区法院针对这些权利要求的简易判决本应被撤销，认为地区法院没有充分分析手段加功能索赔的两步框架下的项目查看器限制。
Impact Engine’s now-denied petition for writ asked the Supreme Court to clarify if the lodestar of Section 101 patent eligibility is preventing preemption of basic technological or scientific building blocks, and whether courts, when analyzing inventions claimed in purely functional terms under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for purposes of Section 101 patent eligibility, must consider the specific corresponding structure defining the patent claim’s scope.
Impact Engine现已被驳回的令状申请要求最高法院澄清，第101条专利资格的指导原则是否阻止了基本技术或科学构件的先占权，以及法院在分析根据35 U.S.C. 112(f)以纯粹功能术语提出的发明时，是否必须考虑定义专利权利要求范围的特定相应结构。
Cellspin Soft v. Fitbit: SCOTUS Grants Motion to File Petition With Appendix Under Seal
Cellspin Soft诉Fitbit案：最高法院批准提交附有密封补充附件的请愿书
Last November, the Federal Circuit issued Cellspin Soft a pair of adverse rulings on the same day. One ruling rebuffed Cellspin Soft’s attempt to force the recusal of U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers over a conflict of interest, and the other, the subject of Cellspin Soft’s petition for writ to the Supreme Court, affirmed the Northern District of California’s summary judgment ruling of noninfringement for Fitbit and other defendants accused of infringing Cellspin Soft’s patented technology for addressing issues with distributing multimedia content. The appeal to the Supreme Court comes after the Federal Circuit’s second decision in Cellspin Soft’s case against Fitbit, the first decision resulting in a remand for claim construction.
去年11月，联邦巡回法院在同一天发布了一对不利的裁决。一项裁决驳回了Cellspin Soft试图迫使美国地区法官Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers因利益冲突而回避的请求，另一项裁决是Cellspin Soft向最高法院申请令状的主题，该裁决确认了加利福尼亚州北区的简易判决裁决，即Fitbit和其他被告不侵权，这些被告被指控侵犯了Cellspin Soft用于解决分发多媒体内容问题的专利技术。向最高法院提起上诉之前，联邦巡回法院对Cellspin Soft诉Fitbit的案件进行了第二次裁决，第一次裁决导致索赔构造被发回重审。
In late January, Cellspin Soft filed a motion for leave to file its petition for writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal. Monday’s order list from the Supreme Court granted Cellspin Soft’s motion. The redacted petition should appear on the Supreme Court’s docket for this case in the coming weeks.
1月下旬，Cellspin Soft提出了一项动议，要求允许提交其申请调取案卷令状的申请，并密封了补充附录。最高法院周一的命令清单批准了Cellspin Soft的动议。修订后的请愿书将在未来几周内出现在最高法院的案件清单上。
Marco Destin v. Levy: Due Diligence Should Have Identified Fraudulent Procurement of Mark
Marco Destin v. Levy:尽职调查本应发现马克的欺诈采购
In February 2011, beach apparel company Marco Destin agreed to pay more than $5 million to beach retail chain L&L Wings in a stipulated settlement. This came after the Southern District of New York ruled that a liquidated damages provision in the trademark license agreement between Marco Destin and L&L Wings for the former’s use of the “WINGS” trademark, a mark Marco Destin used past the expiration of its licensing agreement, was reasonable and enforceable. Soon after the close of those proceedings, a separate case involving L&L Wings brought to light several false representations made by L&L Wings to obtain the “WINGS” federal trademark registration.
2011年2月，沙滩服装公司Marco Destin同意向沙滩零售连锁店L&L Wings支付超过500万美元，以达成规定和解。此前，纽约南区法院裁定，马可·德斯坦与L&L·荣格之间的商标许可协议中关于前者使用“荣格”商标(马可·德斯坦在其许可协议到期后使用的商标)的违约赔偿金条款是合理且可执行的。诉讼结束后不久，另一起涉及L&L之翼的案件揭露了L&L之翼为获得“Wings”联邦商标注册所做的几项虚假陈述。
Last August, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling denying Marco Destin’s attempts to have the stipulated settlement vacated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) for fraud on the court and the USPTO, and seeking sanctions and damages for injuries associated with the fraud. The CAFC agreed with the Southern New York district court that Marco Destin had a reasonable opportunity to uncover fraud in the initial litigation.
去年8月，联邦巡回法院作出裁决，驳回了Marco Destin根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第60(d)(3)条，以法院和美国专利商标局存在欺诈行为为由，申请撤销规定和解的请求，并驳回了其寻求制裁和损害赔偿的诉求。CAFC同意纽约南部地区法院的意见，认为Marco Destin在最初的诉讼中有合理的机会揭露欺诈行为。
Marco Destin’s petition, filed last November and denied yesterday, asked the Supreme Court whether fraud directed at the court or governmental institutions can only lead to an unjust ruling. Further, the petitioner questioned the trial and appellate courts’ refusals to vacate a fraudulently procured judgment under the Supreme Court’s 1944 ruling in Hazel-Atlas Glass v. Hartford-Empire, where the Court vacated a patent infringement ruling for fraudulent procurement despite inquiry notice of the fraud by the defendant.
Marco Destin去年11月提交的请愿书于昨日被驳回，该请愿书询问最高法院，针对法院或政府机构的欺诈行为是否只会导致不公正的裁决。此外，上诉人质疑初审法院和上诉法院拒绝撤销最高法院1944年在最高法院1944年Hazel-Atlas玻璃公司诉哈特福德-帝国公司案（Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238）一案中的裁决，在该案中，尽管被告发出了欺诈调查通知，但法院撤销了欺诈采购的专利侵权裁决。
Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Colgate-Palmolive: Fourth Attempt to Claim Pet Food Formula Fizzles Out
Kamdem-Ouaffo诉高露洁-棕榄案：第四次尝试索赔宠物食品配方未果
Last July, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling denying several causes of action filed by Rickey Kamdem-Ouaffo against Colgate-Palmolive and several other defendants for allegedly misappropriating a pet food flavoring formulation developed by Kamdem-Ouaffo. The Federal Circuit rebuffed Kamdem-Ouaffo’s fourth attempt to pursue litigation over this alleged activity in federal and state courts after finding that the New Jersey statute of limitations on Kamdem-Ouaffo’s fraud had run, and that any timely claims were based on unsupported allegations.
去年7月，联邦巡回法院发布了一项裁决，驳回了Rickey Kamdem-Ouaffo对高露洁棕榄公司和其他几名被告提起的诉讼，指控他们盗用了Kamdem-Ouaffo开发的一种宠物食品调味配方。联邦巡回法院驳回了Kamdem-Ouaffo第四次试图在联邦和州法院就这一涉嫌活动提起诉讼的请求，此前联邦巡回法院发现，新泽西州对Kamdem-Ouaffo欺诈行为的诉讼时效已过，任何及时的索赔都是基于无根据的指控。
After the Supreme Court granted Kamdem-Ouaffo’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, his petition was filed last December. The petition presented three questions: whether federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudge that state courts have jurisdiction to decree summary judgment in a case properly removed to federal courts; whether a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to rule that a Notice of Abandonment issued by the USPTO does not support trade secret misappropriation litigation; and whether a federal court can disregard written opinions of international search agencies examining Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications finding that applicants failed to produce data supporting an inventive step. The petition was denied in January and Kamdem-Ouaffo petitioned for rehearing, which was denied yesterday.
在最高法院批准Kamdem-Ouaffo提出的继续诉讼的动议后，他于去年12月提出了上诉。请愿书提出了三个问题:联邦法院是否有管辖权裁定州法院有管辖权对适当移交给联邦法院的案件作出即决判决；联邦法院是否有权裁定USPTO发布的放弃通知不支持商业秘密盗用诉讼；以及联邦法院是否可以无视审查专利合作条约(PCT)申请的国际检索机构的书面意见，即申请人未能提供支持发明步骤的数据。请愿书在一月份被驳回，Kamdem-Ouaffo请求重新审理，昨天被驳回。