Appeals Patents

News & Analysis as of

The Federal Circuit Finds Broad Claims to Be Patent Eligible because the Claims Are “Nearly Indistinguishable” from Those in...

Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court held in Diamond v. Diehr that while patent claims directed solely to abstract ideas, such as mathematical formulas, are not patent eligible, a claim containing a mathematical formula...more

Export of Single Component of Patented Combination Does Not Impose Liability Under § 271(f)(1)

In reversing the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, an essentially unanimous Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the “supply of a single component of a multi-component invention for manufacture abroad does...more

ITC Proceedings Do Not Trigger One Year Clock to File IPR

Increasing use of Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) by patent stakeholders and an increase in the number of ITC complaints heighten the importance of an interplay between IPRs and ITC proceedings. We have previously noted that the...more

Troll Gets Rolled Because Its Disclaimer Statements Were Undersold

In MPHJ Tech v. Ricoh Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed a conclusion of anticipation and obviousness from an Inter Partes Review involving US 8,488,173 (‘173). The content of the art was not really in dispute. Rather, the...more

Supreme Court Rejects Laches Defense in Patent Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that laches is not a defense in the majority of patent cases. Justice Alito, writing for the 7-1 majority, found the application of laches to patent disputes incompatible with the...more

Supreme Court Curbs Laches as a Defense in Patent Cases

In SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, decided on March 21, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly reduced the role of the laches defense in patent actions: "Laches cannot be interposed as a defense...more

Supreme Court Eliminates the Laches Defense in Patent Cases

The Supreme Court held that laches is no longer a defense against patent infringement. The Patent Act’s six-year statute of limitations already limits the window for damages for infringement, which precludes any further...more

U.S. Supreme Court Eliminates Laches Defense for Damages in Patent Suits

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 21, 2017, held in a 7-1 decision that the defense of laches is not available under the Patent Act to bar claims for damages. SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby...more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – March 2017

Through March 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided 172 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 132 (76.74%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 15...more

Federal Circuit to PTAB – No 102 Gap Filling

In a precedential opinion dated March 14, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB, holding that in finding a claim anticipated under 35 USC § 102, the Board cannot “fill in missing limitations” simply because a skilled...more

State Law Cannot Blur the Line Between Patents and Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that a plaintiff could not use a state law claim for unfair competition to protect a valve design, because federal copyright law preempts such a claim. Ultraflo Corp....more

"In SCA Hygiene, Supreme Court Rules Laches Not a Defense to Damages Within Statutory Period in Patent Cases"

In a 7-1 decision issued on March 21, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC that laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for damages in a patent...more

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB’s Holding of Anticipation Despite an Element Missing from the Prior Art

On March 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified, in a precedential opinion, that an anticipating reference must supply all of the claim elements, regardless of what a person of skill in...more

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Decision Based on Overly Broad Claim Constructions

In Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly and Co., No. 2016-1518, the Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination of unpatentability in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding,...more

Federal Circuit Limits Scope of Covered Business Method Review

The Federal Circuit recently clarified what patents are subject to the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, or CBM review, in Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association. In clarifying what...more

Oh Diehr Me, Another Case With Patent Eligible Subject Matter

In Thales Visionix, Inc., v. U.S., [2015-5150] (March 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) determination that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 were directed to patent...more

Supreme Court limits liability for shipping parts of patented inventions abroad

Generally, to infringe a U.S. patent, the infringing activity — the unauthorized making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importation — occurs within the United States. However, there are exceptions to this rule. Under 35...more

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Anticipation Holding As Improperly Finding One Would “At Once Envisage” Missing Limitation

The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims from Nidec Motor Corp.’s patent were anticipated in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., Case No. 2016-1900 (Fed. Cir....more

Celltrion Files Response Brief in Infliximab Appeal

As we previously reported, in Janssen v. Celltrion, Janssen appealed the district court’s partial final judgment that Janssen’s ‘471 patent, relating to monoclonal antibodies including infliximab, is invalid. As we also...more

Federal Circuit Reiterates That Patent Prosecution Disclaimers Must Be “Clear and Unmistakable”

On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and...more

Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp.: Supreme Court Limits Patent Infringement Liability for Suppliers Under § 271(f)(1)

The Supreme Court in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp held that providing a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to patent infringement liability under 35 U.S.C. §...more

It Was Over Before the Fat Lady Sang; Collateral Estoppel Applies to Partial Summary Judgment under §101

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., [2016-1077] (March 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment that all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,984,081 and 6,546,002 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Complaints About Claim Construction Irrelevant Without a Showing of How it Would Make a Difference

In Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Communications Company LP, [2015-1992] (March 7, 2017) the Federal Circuit affirmed a $7.5 million dollar award for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,170,008, 7,012,916 and 8,204,046...more

Prior Art Preference for an Alternative is Not Enough to Teach Away

In Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., [2016-1755] (March 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,096 on a system whereby a user can identify a supplier of...more

Where Party Joined Pending IPRs, Delaware Takes Broad View of § 315 Estoppel

In Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-02072, Dkt. No. 366 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) (Slip Op.), the court held IBM was estopped from asserting obviousness under §103...more

619 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 25
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 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.
×