Appeals Patents

News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court Rules In Life Technologies Corp. V. Promega Corp.

On February 22, 2017 in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp, the Supreme Court in a 7-0 judgment (Chief Justice Roberts having recused himself) held that for there to be active inducement of infringement by export of...more

Supreme Court Reigns in International Supplier Liability under U.S. Patent Law

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Life Technologies. Corp. v. Promega Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017) (Roberts, C.J., recused), holding that manufacturing and exporting a single component...more

Litigation Alert: The Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit Ruling on Extraterritorial Patent Infringement

In an opinion that will likely give peace of mind to businesses shipping products from the U.S. abroad, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, reversed the Federal Circuit in Life Technologies v....more

Stating Problems that the Claimed Invention is Trying to Solve Appears helpful to Vindicate Patent Eligibility

In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. et al., [2016-1616] (January 18, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the district court’s holding of patent eligibility with regard to...more

Supreme Court Reverses § 271(f)(1) Ruling in Biotech Case

In Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), and held that a single component does not constitute a “substantial portion of the components of...more

Federal Circuit Case Highlights the Importance of a Well Designed Provisional Patent Application Strategy

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corporation, et al., No. 2016-1243 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2017). This case highlights the importance of a...more

RxIP Update - February 2017

Federal Court of Appeal rules on non-infringing alternatives and apportionment as defences to an accounting of profits from patent infringement - On February 2, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal released a significant...more

Hindsight Cannot be the Thread that Stitches the Prior Art Patches into the Claimed Invention

In Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., v. The Toro Company, [2016-2433, 2016-2514] (February 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed a modified preliminary injunction against Toro’s continued infringement of U.S. Patent No....more

Federal Circuit Rules Software Patent for a User Interface is Patentable Subject Matter

In the recent decision Trading Technologies International, Inc., v. CQG, Inc. et al., the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling that a software patent on a graphical user interface was patentable subject matter,...more

Federal Circuit Knocks Out Patents After CBM Challenge

Apple successfully invalidated three patents for failure to recite patent eligible subject matter. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 2015-1792, 2015-1793 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patents relate to synchronous communication systems...more

Federal Court of Appeal rules on non-infringing alternatives and apportionment as defences to an accounting of profits from patent...

On February 2, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal released a significant decision on accounting for profits, a remedy for patent infringement in Canada: Apotex Inc v ADIR, 2017 FCA 23. The appeal concerned two defences raised...more

Smith & Nephew, Arthrex Settled Suture Anchor Patent Dispute Before Trial

On February 14, 2017, U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman of the United States District Court, District of Oregon granted a Joint Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice submitted by Plaintiffs Smith & Nephew, Inc. and...more

Just Because One Could Doesn’t Mean One Would

In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., [2016-1174] (February 14, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s claim construction but vacated the Board’s obviousness determination because the Board did not...more

Case Summary - PPG Industries, Inc. v. Valspar Sourcing, Inc.

In a non-precedential decision, the Federal Circuit found that appellant PPG had Article III standing to file an appeal from two inter partes reexaminations. However, the Court found that appellee Valspar’s subsequent...more

Federal Circuit Again Reverses PTAB Obviousness Determination

In what is becoming a familiar basis for reversal of PTAB decisions, the Federal Circuit yet again reversed the PTAB for its failure to adequately explain the basis for combining multiple prior art references in support of...more

Federal Circuit Review | January 2017

PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR Must Explain Its Basis for a Motivation to Combine References - In In Re: Nuvasive, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1670, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s obviousness finding in an IPR,...more

Federal Circuit Finds "Consisting Of" Requires Reversing Infringement Of Shire Lialda Patent

The Federal Circuit focused on the “consisting of” language in the claims at issue when it reversed the district court’s finding that Watson’s ANDA product would infringe the only Orange Book-listed Shire Lialda patent. In so...more

The Removal of Matter from the Provisional Application is Significant to the Interpretation of the Claims in the Non-Provisional...

In MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC. v. Ricoh Americas Corp., [2016-1243] (February 13, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,488,173 were invalid on the grounds of...more

You’re So Vague: Federal Circuit Sends IPR Decision Back to PTAB for More Thorough Analysis

In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal’s Board (PTAB) is required to explicitly state motivations to combine prior-art references in claim rejections for obviousness. ...more

UK: Drop in the ocean – Employee's invention not profitable enough for compensation

The UK Court of Appeal confirmed on 18 January that an employee was not entitled to any compensation from his employer for the income generated by his patented inventions, as the returns did not amount to an “outstanding...more

Strong Presumption that Markush Claim Elements are Closed to Additional Elements

In Shire Development. LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., [2016-1785] (February 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of infringement because the accused product did not meet the Markush claim element, and...more

“Poisonous Divisionals” Poisoned In The EPO

For the past few years there has been fear that the law on priority claims in the European Patent Office (EPO) could result in a divisional application becoming prior art against its parent if the divisional application...more

The Apple May Not Fall Far from the Fashion Industry

In 2011, Apple sued Samsung alleging among other things that various portions of Samsung smartphone products infringed claims of certain design patents owned by Apple (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). In 2012,...more

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Winter 2017

A Smooth Patch in a Rough Road? Governmental Transition and Intellectual Property - Whenever a new Congress convenes, some IP issues come to the fore while others take a back seat. Transition to a new administration in...more

Court Rejects Theory Of Derivation Based On FDA Requirement

The Federal Circuit decision in Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Institutional LLC may be more interesting for what Mylan argued than for what the Federal Circuit decided. However, it could be an important decision...more

568 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 23
Popular Topics

"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.
×