Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC

PTAB Misapplied Common Sense in Finding Claims Obvious

In Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., [2015-2073] (August 10, 2016) the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB Final Written Decision that claims 1-2, 8, 14-17, 20-21, 23-24, 30, 36-39, and 42-43 of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 were…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

District Court Correctly Added Inventors Who Contributed to at least one Claim Element

In Vapor Point LLC. v. Moorhead, [2015-1801, 2015-2003] (August 10, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s correction of inventorship, dismissal of the infringement action, and denial of a attorneys’ fees…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

“Substantial Evidence” Hurdle is Substantially Difficult to Overcome

One of the less appreciated hurdles to a successful appeal of a Final Written Decision in an IPR proceeding is the “substantial evidence” standard of review the Federal Circuit applies to the Graham factors that underlie a…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands PTAB Obviousness Determination Not Supported by Adequate Reasoned Explanation

In In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 2015-1050, 2015-1058 (August 9, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the PTAB’s decision in IPR2013-00206 and IPR2013-00208 that claims 1–8 and 17–23 of…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

BRI Does Not Apply if Patent Expires Any Time During Reexamination Proceeding

In In Re CSB-System International, Inc., [2015-1832] (August 9, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB erred in applying a broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction, instead of a Phillips claim construction,…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Sale and Offer for Sale Determined by Where “Substantial Activities of the Sales Transactions” Occur

In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., [2013-1472, 2013-1656](August 5, 2016), on remand from the Supreme Court, which held that 35 USC 284 gives district courts the discretion to award enhanced damages in…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

PTAB Reversed–Common Sense Improperly Used to Supply Missing Limitation in Obviousness Inquiry

In a rare rebuke of the PTAB’s discretion, the Federal Circuit has outright reversed a finding of obviousness based on the Board’s misapplication of the law on the permissible use of “common sense” in an obviousness analysis. …more
| Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Federal Circuit Provides Ammunition to Patentees In Magnum Decision

Patent Owners gained a bit of a reprieve in the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in In Re Magnum Oil Tool Int’l, Ltd., decided on July 25, 2016. In several key respects, Patent Owners regained some footing in the otherwise…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Patent Drafters: Leaving Coining to the Mint

In Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., [2015-1732] (July 28, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,728 and 7,672,681 for indefiniteness…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Repeated and Consistent Usage, including in Rule 131 Declaration, Defines Term

In GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., [2015-1825] (August 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination of noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,570,954 and 7,792,492, relating to a two-way paging system…more
| Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Information is Intangible, so Methods of Manipulating it are Abstract

In Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom S.A., [2015-1778] (August 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,843, 8,060,259, and 8,401,710, on systems and methods for…more
| Civil Procedure, Energy & Utilities, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

PTO Cannot Raise & Decide Unpatentability Theories Never Presented by the Petitioner

In In re Magnum Tools International, Ltd., [2015-1300] (July 25, 2016) the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that the challenged claims U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 were invalid for obviousness. The Federal…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

BioPharma Patents Quick Tips & News – July 2016

U.S. FDA Orange Book Refresher Edition - What types of patents can be listed on the FDA’s Orange Book? Listable = Pharmaceutical-related patents are allowed in the FDA’s Orange Book only if they’re “composition” or…more
| Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Where’s My %$^&# Dollar?

The issue of consideration in an assignment is always in the background, but only occasionally comes up. In Memorylink Corp. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 773 F.3d 1266, 113 USPQ2d 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit had…more
| Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Sale of Manufacturing Services Does Not Trigger On Sale Bar Under Pre-AIA §102

In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., [2014-1469, 2014,1504] (July 11, 2016), the en banc Federal Circuit reversed a panel decision finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 and 7,598,343 were invalid under the on-sale bar of…more
| Civil Procedure, Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
Showing 1-15 of 706 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 48
Contact

5445 Corporate Dr
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098, United States

  • (248) 641-1600
  • (248) 641-0270

Areas of Practice
  • Appellate Practice
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Law & Trade
  • Litigation
  • Science, Computers, & Tech
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • Michigan
  • Missouri
  • Texas
  • Virginia
Number of Attorneys

100+ Attorneys

This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.

"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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×