News & Analysis as of

Appeals Patents

Function/Way/Result Test Causes Headaches in Chemical Cases; Substitute Insubstantial Differences Test

In Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., [2017-1645] (May 19, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction against the infringement of U.S. Patent 9,353,050 on a triarylmethane dye...more

Court Clarifies Meaning of “Ground for Invalidity” for Purposes of Post-IPR Estoppel

A district court judge recently addressed the scope of estoppel for a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR). Specifically, the court clarified the meaning of a “ground for invalidity” as it relates to the estoppel effect...more

Merely Because Petitioner Changes its Mind is not Enough to Stop Inter Partes Reexamination

In In Re: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P., [2016-1830] (May 10. 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination in Inter Partes Reexamination, that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,071, directed to methods...more

Not Necessarily Unfair to Reply on Patent Owner’s Submissions in Obviousness Finding, but Board Failed to Provide Adequate...

In Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co., KG, [2016-2233] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2015-00150, finding the Board did not set forth its reasoning in sufficient...more

Written Description Lacking Where Nothing in the Specification Suggests Inventor Contemplated Claimed Invention

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC, [2016-1143, 2016-1144](May 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed in part the Board’s decision in Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,082. ...more

Federal Circuit Finds Claims Directed to Encoding and Decoding Image Data Patent-Ineligible

The Federal Circuit recently held in RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016) that claims directed to encoding and decoding image data were not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This ruling further...more

Failure to Provide an Unconditional Covenant Not to Sue Kept Case and Controversy Alive

In ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp., [2016-1357] (May 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment invalidating claims 24 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. RE44153....more

Federal Circuit’s Primer on Equivalence Infringement of Chemical Process Patents

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In an appeal characterized as “unusual,” the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, holding it likely that plaintiff patent holder would succeed on the merits its claim of infringement of a patent...more

Patent Owner Statements During an IPR Disclaimed Claim Scope

In Aylus Networks, Inc., v. Apple, [2016-1599] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 44,412 on systems and methods for implementing digital home networks...more

In Determining Whether a Case “Stands Out,” It was Not Improper to Consider Patent Cases Generally

In Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chemical Co., [2016-1576] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the case was “exceptional” under 35 USC 285, and the award of $2.5 million...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In Mylan v. Aurobindo the Circuit affirms the grant of a preliminary injunction based upon the infringement of one of the three patents in suit. However, the panel reverses the injunction as to the other two patents based on...more

Federal Circuit Expands Scope of Prosecution Disclaimer to IPR Proceedings

In its opinion in Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of prosecution disclaimer to statements made by a patent owner during Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The Court explained...more

You Can Not Claim What you Don’t Possess – Federal Circuit Holds Fiber Optic Claims Invalid under Section 112

On May 10, 2017 and following a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reexamination decision upholding certain claims, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems,...more

Are Inter Partes Review Proceedings Constitutional? The Federal Circuit Is Not Yet Ready To Decide

by Jones Day on

On May 11, 2017, with six of its twelve active judges authoring or joining separate opinions, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for an initial hearing en banc which asked the full Court to address the question “whether a...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more

New Fed Circuit decision bolsters on-sale bar

by Thompson Coburn LLP on

Patent litigators will tell you that there are many ways to invalidate a patent. One of their favorites is a self-inflicted ground of invalidity known as the “on-sale bar.” Under patent law, if you sell (or offer to sell)...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar Under the AIA: No Public Disclosure of the Invention Is Required if the Existence of the...

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the on-sale bar generally holds that the sale of a patented invention more than one year before the filing date invalidates the patent. Before the America Invents Act (AIA), courts held that...more

Court Narrows Invalidity Case Through IPR Estoppel, but Federal Circuit’s Shaw Decision Keeps Some Arguments Alive

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) raised the possibility that the inter partes review (IPR) estoppel of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) might not do much...more

District Court Precludes Defendant from Asserting Invalidity Grounds That It Raised or Could Have Reasonably Raised in IPR...

On May 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roy Payne in the Eastern District of Texas recommended that patentee Biscotti’s inter partes review (IPR) estoppel motion be granted–in-part and denied-in-part....more

Federal Circuit Review | April 2017

Patentee’s Unnecessarily Broad Prosecution Disclaimer Affirmed by Federal Circuit - In Technology Properties Limited LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2016-1306, -1307, -1309, -1310, -1311, the Federal...more

Federal Circuit Maintains Pre-AIA Interpretation of the On-Sale Bar for Public Sales

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A., v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently held that, despite changes to the statutory language of § 102 under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the Court’s pre-AIA...more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – May 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

Through May 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided 200 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 150 (75%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 17 (8.50%)...more

Federal Circuit Holds That Statements Made In IPRs Can Lead To Prosecution Disclaimer

by Jones Day on

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) (“Federal Circuit Op.”), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Apple did not infringe Aylus’s patents. See Aylus Networks,...more

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen

by Jones Day on

On April 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195), on appeal from the Federal Circuit's July 21, 2015, opinion interpreting various provisions of the Biologics...more

En Banc Federal Circuit Poised To Decide Important Question Concerning PTAB Appeals

by Jones Day on

The en banc Federal Circuit is currently considering whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar on IPR petitions can be reviewed on appeal. In Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp, the en banc Court is set...more

703 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 29
Cybersecurity

"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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!