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
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
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
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
"[A] device does not infringe simply because it is possible to alter it in a way that would satisfy all the limitations of a patent claim."
On February 4, 2013, in Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., the...more
[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
§ 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
As a threshold issue in any monopolization claim, the court must identify the relevant market.
On December 17, 2012, in IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Bryson, Linn,...more