Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC

Federal Circuit Remands Issue of Enhanced Damages for Determination Whether this was an Egregious Case of Misconduct Beyond Typical Infringement

In WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., [2013-1527, 2014-1121, 2014-1526] (September 21, 2016), the Federal Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court after Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., vacated the…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Intellectual Property

Inherent Disclosure is Sufficient to Support a Priority Claim

In Yeda Research v. Abbott GmbH. [2015-1662] (September 20, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that U.S. Patent No. 5,344,915 was entitled to priority of its parent application, and thus was not…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Substantial Evidence Supported Infringement of Limitations That Did Not Need Construction

In Lifenet Health v. Lifecell Corporation, [2015-1549](September 16, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,569,200 on plasticized soft tissue grafts suitable for…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

PTAB Decision to Institute Despite Alleged § 315 Time Bar is Not Reviewable

Wi-Fi One LLC argued that Broadcom Corp. was barred from petitioning for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because it was in privity with a time-barred district court litigant. To determine whether a petitioner is…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Backgrounds — The Less Said the Better

Prosecutors are repeatedly being told by the Federal Circuit, and we are gradually learning, that the less said on the Background the better. Whether it is by admitted prior art, criticisms of the prior art that work a…more
| Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Read Our Lips: Not Everything is Abstract

In MCRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., [2015-1080] (September 13, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed judgment on the pleadings that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,307,576 and 6,611,278 on the automated synchronization of…more
| Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Compliance with PTAB’s Requirements for Motion to Amend Arbitrary and Capricious?

In Veritax Technologies LLC, v. Veeam Software Corp., [2015-1894] (August 30, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s denial of the patent owner’s motion to amend in IPR2014-00090 as arbitrary and capricious…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property

Claim Narrowed by Specification is Saved from Indefiniteness but too Narrow to be Infringed

In Liberty Ammunition, Inc., v. U.S., [2015-5057, 2015-5061] (August 30, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Claims decision that that ammunition rounds used by the United States Army embody the claims of Liberty…more
| Civil Procedure, Government Contracting, Intellectual Property, Military Law

PTAB Reversed Based on Non-Analogous Art Theory

Although In re Natural Alternatives LLC (Fed. Cir. August 31, 2016) is not an IPR appeal, it should be of interest to those who care about IPRs and PGRs because it reflects a successful appeal from the Patent Trial & Appeal…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Federal Circuit Demonstrates Willingness to Rein in PTAB’s Onerous Idle Free Rules Regarding Claim Amendments

Patentees have been generally frustrated with the Board’s unwillingness to grant motions to amend. The Board’s Idle Free case, and its progeny, have added a number of requirements to a motion to amend that are above and beyond…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

45 Months of Inter Partes Review – By the Numbers (Volume 14)

Welcome to Harness Dickey’s Report on Litigation Practice before the United States Patent Office. Created by the America Invents Act, Inter Partes Review proceedings have already changed the face of patent litigation. Lower…more
| Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

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
Showing 1-15 of 717 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.
×