Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101 - In Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. Appeal No. 22-2216, the Federal Circuit held that patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional...more
9/10/2024
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
America Invents Act ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Validity ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS
Before Prost, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Summary: Literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents are treated as the same...more
In Natera, Inc v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1324 the Federal Circuit held that preliminary injunction may be valid if a substantial question of invalidity was not raised, even if the asserted patent is...more
8/6/2024
/ Background Checks ,
Claim Construction ,
Estoppel ,
Ex Parte ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Limited Liability Company (LLC) ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Prior Art ,
Public Disclosure ,
Public Interest ,
USPTO
Before Bryson, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Summary: Estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) only applies to obtaining new...more
Reliably Determining Reasonable Royalty Rates from Lump Sum Licenses - In Ecofactor, Inc. V. Google LLC, Appeal No. 23-1101, The Federal Circuit held that license agreements containing a lump sum payment “based on” a royalty...more
7/2/2024
/ Alice/Mayo ,
Appeals ,
Damages ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Generic Drugs ,
Google ,
Labeling ,
License Agreements ,
Lump Sum Payments ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Royalties ,
Sports Gambling
Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more
6/7/2024
/ Damages ,
Design Patent ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Licensing Rules ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patentability Search ,
Patents ,
Printed Matter Doctrine ,
Prior Art ,
Standing ,
Summary Judgment
Obviousness Analysis Does Not Consider Unclaimed Limitations - In Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Usa, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1258, the Federal Circuit held that district court erred by adding unclaimed...more
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
Before Prost, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: District court erred by adding...more
Defining Indefiniteness: When Are Claim Limitations Contradictory?
In Maxell, Ltd., v. Amperex Technology Limited, Appeal No. 23-1194, the Federal Circuit held that two claim limitations are not contradictory if they...more
The Outcome of the PTAB’s Analysis May Determine Whether the PTAB Engaged in Claim Construction -
In Google LLC v. Ecofactor, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1750, the Federal Circuit held that the outcome of the PTAB’s analysis of...more
3/5/2024
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Claim Construction ,
Google ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Philip Morris ,
Prior Art
RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. v. PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A -
Before Chen, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. -
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Copyright notices in product manuals, which prohibited their reproduction and...more
December 2023 Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) -
Intel Wrongly Denied Opportunity to Litigate License Defense that Could Unwind $2.1 Billion Judgment -
In Vlsi Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Appeal No....more
Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction -
In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more
12/5/2023
/ Article III ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Life Sciences ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Purdue Pharma ,
Standing
Substantial Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc, Appeal No. 22-1335, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s finding on obviousness is supported by substantial evidence that a skilled...more
IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response -
In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
9/20/2023
/ Claim Construction ,
Ex Parte ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO
NETFLIX, INC. v. DivX, LLC -
Before Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Petitioner was not required to explicitly identify secondary reference’s “field of endeavor” using...more
APPLE INC. v. COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
Before Stoll, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An IPR final written decision based on a party’s brief mention of an error in an expert...more
Can’t Stop a Bull: Limits of Claim Preclusion -
In Inguran, LLC Dba Stgenetics v. Abs Global, Inc., Genus Plc, Appeal No. 22-1385, the Federal Circuit held that claim preclusion does not bar an induced infringement claim...more
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
7/20/2023
/ Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Medical Devices ,
Medtronic ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
Who Bears the Burden of Proof for IPR Estoppel?
In Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Appeal No. 21-2296, the Federal Circuit held that the patentee has the burden of proving that invalidity grounds not raised in a...more
Description Prescription -
In Regents Of The University Of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2168, the Federal Circuit held that for drug patents, adequate written description of a broad genus claim...more
BERTINI v. APPLE INC.
Before Moore, Taranto and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Tacking a mark for one good or service does not grant priority for every other good or service in the...more
Arthrex Again? Federal Circuit Says, “No More!” -
In Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 20-1565, the Federal Circuit held that, while the Appointments Clause requires that the USPTO Director have the power to...more
Inventor’s Testimony Regarding Actual Reduction to Practice Was Sufficiently Corroborated In Dionex Softron GmbH v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2372, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB did not err in...more