Latest Posts › Patents

Share:

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

On December 13, 2013, in Suprema, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Prost, O'Malley,* Reyna) affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded-in-part the Commission's...more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.

On December 13, 2013, in CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Dyk, O'Malley, Taranto*) reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court judgment...more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.

On December 11, 2013, in Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman, Bryson, Prost*) reversed the district court's judgment that U.S. Patents No. 7,579,377, No. 7,737,181,...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

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS

On July 22, 2013, in Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader, Schall,* Bryson) affirmed the district court's judgment as a matter of law that U.S. Patent No....more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch In re Adler

When the Board relies upon a new ground of rejection not relied upon by the examiner, the applicant is entitled to reopen prosecution or to request a rehearing [unless the applicants] have had fair opportunity to react to the...more

Patent Watch: Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring....more

Patent Watch: Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass'n v. Monsanto Co.

"[Where the court relies on a patent holder's] representations to defeat [jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claims], those representations are binding as a matter of judicial estoppel [even in the absence of a...more

Patent Watch: InterDigital Commc'ns, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

"[A]n ITC order terminating an investigation on the basis of an arbitration agreement [is] an appealable final determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c) [over which the Federal Circuit has] jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §...more

Patent Watch: Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp.

In disclaiming claim coverage in light of certain prior art, the applicant does not thereby act as a lexicographer, redefining individual words....more

Patent Watch: Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne v. Broetje Automation USA Inc.

"There is no requirement in 35 USC 112 that an applicant point out which of his embodiments he considers his best mode; that the disclosure includes the best mode contemplated by the applicant is enough to satisfy the...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: Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharms., Inc.

“[A]n agreement of confidentiality, or circumstances creating a similar expectation of secrecy, may negate a ‘public use’ where there is not commercial exploitation” [even] when an unaffiliated third party is responsible for...more

Patent Watch: Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corp.

Expert testimony [may be] required not only to explain what the prior art references disclosed, but also to show that a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine them in order to achieve the claimed...more

Patent Watch: Aventis Pharms., Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.

"[T]he same claim term can have different constructions depending upon the context of how the term is used within the claims and specification."...more

5/22/2013  /  Contract Interpretation , Patents

Patent Watch: Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc.

On May 10, 2013, in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader, Dyk, Reyna*) affirmed the district court's denial of Genentech's motion to enjoin Sanofi from...more

Patent Watch: Motiva, LLC. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

The "Commission is fundamentally a trade forum, not an intellectual property forum" [and] litigation expenses directed at preventing, instead of encouraging manufacture of, articles incorporating patented technology does not...more

Patent Watch: CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp.

[T]hough much is published today discussing the proper approach to the patent eligibility inquiry, nothing said today beyond our judgment has the weight of precedent....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

66 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 3

"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.