Latest Posts › Infringement

Share:

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Motorola Mobility LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

On December 16, 2013, in Motorola Mobility LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader,* Prost, Taranto) affirmed the Commission's determination, inter alia, that Motorola violated 19...more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc.

[T]here is no "supplier exception" to the on-sale bar, [and] it is of no consequence that the "commercial offer for sale" [was] made by [the patentee's] own supplier and was made to [the patentee] itself....more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

While an adverse claim construction generally cannot, alone, form the basis for an exceptional case finding, [a] party cannot assert baseless infringement claims and must continually assess the soundness of pending...more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

While the facts may show that damages would be reparable, this assumption is not sufficient [for purposes of a preliminary injunction analysis]....more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Rembrandt Vision Techs., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.

An expert witness may not testify to subject matter beyond the scope of the witness's expert report unless the failure to include that information in the report was "substantially justified or harmless."...more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Apple, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

[E]vidence relating to all four Graham factors -- including objective evidence of secondary considerations -- must be considered before determining whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of skill in the...more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc.

Where a court holds a claim obvious without making findings of secondary considerations, the lack of specific consideration of secondary considerations ordinarily requires a remand....more

Patent Watch: Forrester Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Wheelabrator Techs., Inc.

[P]ermitting state courts to adjudicate disparagement cases (involving alleged false statements about U.S. patent rights) could result in inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts [but] this possibility of...more

Patent Watch: Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

On May 13, 2013, in Bowman v. Monsanto Co., the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the district court's judgment that Bowman infringed U.S. Patents No. 5,352,605 and No. RE39,247, which related to...more

Patent Watch: Baron Servs., Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations, LLC

On May 7, 2013, in Baron Servs., Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Dyk, Reyna, Prost*) vacated and remanded the district court's summary judgment that MWI did not...more

Patent Watch: Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.

On May 1, 2013, in Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader,* Prost, Moore) affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded-in-part the district court's judgment that...more

Patent Watch: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, LLC

On April 19, 2013, in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman,* Prost, Reyna) affirmed the district court's ruling that prior litigation collaterally estopped Aspex...more

Patent Watch: Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc.

On April 19, 2013, in Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Lourie,* Dyk, Reyna) reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court's summary...more

Patent Watch: Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson

On April 4, 2013, in Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Lourie,* Moore, O'Malley) reversed the district court's judgment that Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corp. infringed U.S....more

Patent Watch: Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.

On March 26, 2013, in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Lourie, O'Malley, Reyna*) affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part and...more

Patent Watch: Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.

On March 15, 2013, in Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman, Clevenger, Moore*) affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part and remanded the district court's summary judgment...more

Patent Watch: Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int' Game Tech.

On March 13, 2013, in Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int' Game Tech., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (O'Malley,* Bryson, Linn) affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court's...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Finding of Infringement in SynQor v. Artesyn Techs.

On March 13, 2013, in SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader,* Lourie, Daniel) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that the defendants infringed U.S. Patents...more

Patent Watch: Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, Inc.

On February 20, 2013, in Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Dyk, Moore,* Reyna) reversed and remanded the district court's summary judgment that Brilliant did...more

Patent Watch: Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

On February 14, 2013, in, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reyna, Bryson, Wallach*) reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court's judgment following a bench trial that Watson did not infringe...more

Patent Watch: Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Nagata

"[Neither the Declaratory Judgment Act nor Federal Circuit jurisprudence creates] a federal cause of action for assignor estoppel." On February 11, 2013, in Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Nagata, the U.S. Court of...more

Patent Watch: Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

[A] sua sponte dismissal of a complaint "is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised."...more

Patent Watch: Allflex U.S.A., Inc. v. Avid Identification Sys., Inc.

[Where] the appellant has identified no relationship between the valuation placed on the appeal and the issues the appellant wishes to challenge, the parties have simply placed a "side bet" on the outcome of the appeal, which...more

Patent Watch: Intel Corp. v. Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC

§ 251 suggests to a potential licensee that -- in the absence of contrary language in the licensing agreement -- a license under the patent that is not directed to any specific claims, field of use or other limited right will...more

Patent Watch: Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.

[A] finding of no competition for the purpose of irreparable harm conflicts with the clear finding of competition for the purpose of awarding damages. On December 19, 2012, in Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech....more

28 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!