News & Analysis as of

Cox Communications Indefiniteness

McDermott Will & Emery

Point of Novelty Enters Indefiniteness Analysis

McDermott Will & Emery on

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communication Co., Case No. 16-1013 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 23, 2016) (Prost, CJ) (Newman, J, dissenting). Sprint sued Cox for patent infringement, asserting several patents directed to...more

BakerHostetler

A Split Panel of the Federal Circuit Debates the Standards for Definiteness

BakerHostetler on

In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co. LP, Appeal No. 2016-1013 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016), the panel, consisting of Chief Judge Prost (authoring the opinion) and Judges Newman and Bryson, unanimously...more

Morris James LLP

Rule 54(b) Final Judgment Entered On Indefinite Patents

Morris James LLP on

The Court found patents indefinite through partial summary judgment motion practice. Patent owner requested entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) in writing and orally. Accused infringer objected, contending that...more

3 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

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