The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the minimum contacts or purposeful availment test for specific personal jurisdiction was satisfied where a patent owner sent multiple infringement notice letters...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now vacated its prior ruling finding induced infringement based on so-called skinny labeling on a pharmaceutical product. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA...more
2/25/2021
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Inducement ,
Intent ,
Labeling ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals
In the wake of its six-week-old decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court of the United States has now granted certiorari in an appeal of another case arising from a Federal Circuit appeal...more
6/24/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
Addressing the scope of review of the PTAB’s application of the one-year time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an IPR proceeding, the US Supreme Court held that the PTAB’s application of the time bar...more
4/23/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
The Supreme Court of the United States, brushing aside the position taken by the US Patent and Trademark Office as to the suitability of this case as a vehicle for review, agreed to consider whether a petition for an America...more
7/9/2019
/ § 315(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Certiorari ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Voluntary Dismissals
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of obviousness over a patent owner’s challenge to the “combination” of prior art, explaining that no motivation to combine...more
In its third ruling in an ongoing patent dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a grant of summary judgment barring an infringement action under the principle of collateral estoppel was legal...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an award of enhanced damages even while affirming a jury finding of willfulness (based on substantial evidence), explaining that the award was not adequately explained...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to consider whether US patent owners can recoup some profits lost because of infringement that occurs outside of the United States. WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,...more
On February 22, 2017, in reversing the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, an essentially unanimous US Supreme Court ruled that the “supply of a single component of a multi-component invention for...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has granted a petition for certiorari to consider whether 28 USC § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions in light of amendments made...more
A unanimous US Supreme Court held that for purposes of determining damages for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §289, the relevant “article of manufacture” may include either the end product sold to the consumer or...more
12/8/2016
/ Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Cell Phones ,
Design Patent ,
iPhone ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Samsung ,
SCOTUS ,
Smartphones
Addressing the pleading standard under which a joint patent infringement claim must be reviewed, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint of patent infringement, finding that the...more
In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more
10/12/2016
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
En Banc Review ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Samsung ,
Smartphones ,
Substantial Evidence Standard
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding active inducement infringement under 35 USC § 271(f)(1) in a case important to US manufacturers...more
7/29/2016
/ Appeals ,
Certiorari ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Cross-Border Transactions ,
Damages ,
Induced Infringement ,
Judgment As A Matter Of Law ,
Life Technologies Corp v Promega Corp ,
Manufacturer Liability ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS
The Supreme Court of the United States has now agreed to review a 2015 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the proper measure of damages in cases of design patent infringement. Samsung...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a patent owner’s due process rights were not violated when a district court found that the defendant did not infringe all of the originally asserted patents, even...more
The en banc U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its long awaited (10-2) decision, reaffirming the court’s prior rulings in Mallinckrodt and Jazz Photo that a seller can use its patent rights to block resale...more
Lexmark International, Inc., v. Impression Products, Inc., Case Nos. 14-1617, -1619 (Fed Cir, Feb. 12, 2016) (en banc) (Taranto, J., joined by Prost, CJ and Newman, Lourie, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Chen and Stoll, JJ)...more
Taking its first IP cases of the current session, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two § 284 enhanced fee award patent cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., S.Ct. No. 14-1513 (Oct. 19, 2015) and...more
11/5/2015
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Certiorari ,
Damages ,
Enhanced Penalties ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Stryker Ortho ,
Treble Damages ,
Willful Infringement
In two related decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) determined that patents directed to a personal computer interactive lottery/casino type game that allows players to purchase game tickets in the form...more
10/7/2015
/ Abstract Ideas ,
America Invents Act ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Patent Expiration ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Versata
In a trio of orders addressing the extent of express explanation required in a petition for post-grant review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found each petition defective for lack of explanation regarding...more
In yet another post-Teva claim construction case (see discussion of Teva v. Sandoz, Shire Development v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. and TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph cases (this edition) the U.S....more
Addressing the issue of damages for trade dress and design patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the bulk of Apple’s roughly $930 million damages award, noting that there is no apportionment...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc for the limited purpose of revisiting when claims invoke the means-plus-function language of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (§ 112(6)) (now § 112(f)) replaced a part of...more