De Novo Standard of Review

News & Analysis as of

Teva Review Standard Controls Lighting Ballast on Remand - Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp.

In yet another post-Teva claim construction case (see discussion of Teva v. Sandoz, Shire Development v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. and TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph cases (this edition) the U.S....more

B&B Hardware: The Preclusive Effect of TTAB Decisions in Court

Introduction - Issue preclusion is a familiar concept to most practicing attorneys. Under this doctrine, “later courts should honor the first actual decision of a matter that has been actually litigated.” Charles Alan...more

Kaneka v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group: Implicit Order Read into Method Steps of Industrial Biotechnology Patent

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co. (Fed. Cir. 2015) serves as a reminder that courts may implicitly read an order into a patent’s method claim steps, even if the applicant did...more

Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

Case Name: Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.) (Appeal from S.D. Fla., Middlebrooks, J.) - Drug...more

ITC Section 337 Update - July 2015

ALJ Shaw Finds No Violation In 921 Investigation – On July 2, 2015, Administrative Law Judge David Shaw issued a 320-page Final Initial Determination On Violation And Recommended Determination On Remedy in Certain Marine...more

Intellectual Property Alert: Federal Circuit Holds Claims Indefinite Based on Prosecution History in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v....

On June 18, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case was on remand from the Supreme Court, which vacated the Federal...more

The B&B Hardware Case and its Potential Impact on Trademark Litigation

Trademark disputes can often play out in a number of forums. Trademark disputes often start off in the marketplace, with a confused consumer, and then proceed to litigation in several tribunals including the Trademark Trial...more

First Round of Post-Teva Claim Construction Decisions: Business as Usual?

In its January 2015 decision, Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the ultimate construction of a patent claim term is a question of law, subject to de novo appellate review, but that the...more

Appealing a Trademark Registration Refusal? Win or Lose, You May Have to Pay the USPTO’s Legal Fees

The federal Trademark Act (the Lanham Act) instructs that if an unsuccessful trademark applicant appeals a refusal to register in federal district court, the applicant must name the Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark...more

Supreme Court's Decision in Teva Does Not Require Federal Circuit to Review Immaterial or Improper Fact-Finding under a Clear...

After an appeal to the Federal Circuit, Defendant Arthrex, Inc. ("Arthrex") filed a motion to reopen the judgment under FRCP 60(b). Arthrex premised its motion on the argument that the judgment should be reopened in light of...more

IP Newsflash - June 2015

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - CAFC: If (No Factual Findings), Then (No Deference) - Two days ago, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit in Shire v. Watson again affirmed its reversal of the...more

Info-Hold Cases: De Novo Review Where Claim Construction Evidence Is Neither Intrinsic Nor Extrinsic and Expert Damages Testimony...

In two decisions involving the same plaintiff and patent but different defendants, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied de novo review after choosing not to classify evidence used below and reversed an...more

Heinz Seeks “Smart” De Novo Review In Light Of B&B Hardware

H.J. Heinz Co. (“Heinz”) filed a federal lawsuit recently against Boulder Brands USA (“Boulder”) seeking to vacate and reverse a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision finding that Boulder’s SMART BALANCE trademark is not...more

Implementation of Teva’s Hybrid Review Claim Construction - CSR PLC v. Azure Networks, LLC

Addressing the issue of de novo versus differential claim construction review post-Teva, the Supreme Court of the United States remanded back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a case where de novo review...more

Federal Circuit Holds Biosig’s Patent Definite Under New Standard

Applying the Supreme Court’s new “reasonable certainty” standard for patent definiteness in Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc. (2015) (Nautilus III), the Federal Circuit again held that Biosig’s patent for a heart...more

Eleventh Circuit Rules District Court Did Not See The Forest For The Trees When It Came To Copyright Protectability Of Laminate...

This past Wednesday, April 29, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded an underlying grant of summary judgment by the Northern District of Georgia that invalidated a copyright in a laminate wood flooring design. In Home...more

Federal Circuit’s Initial Reaction to Teva

In the nearly three months since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that subsidiary factual findings in claim construction proceedings must be reviewed for clear error, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided...more

If I won my case, why do I need to worry about an appeal? [Video]

Phoenix business law firm Jaburg Wilk appellate attorney Kathi Sandweiss discusses why people need to be aware of an appeal, even if they won their case. For more information visit www.jaburgwilk.com. ...more

Teva Pharms USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Case Name: Teva Pharms USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 10-13-854, 135 S. Ct. 831 (Mar. 20, 2012) (Breyer, J. delivered opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.,...more

Where Do We Go from Here? Teva’s Impact on IPR and District Court Practice

The recent Supreme Court case of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. held that, although the ultimate issue of claim construction is a legal question subject to de novo review, underlying factual determinations...more

Intellectual Property Legal News: Volume 2, Number 1

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: IS IT TIME TO RETHINK HOW YOU WILL ARGUE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION? The United States Supreme Court decided in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. that the Federal Circuit must review all...more

B&B Hardware v. Hargis – U.S. Supreme Court Declares TTAB Findings Can Have Preclusive Effect on Subsequent Federal Court...

On Tuesday, March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second decision in substantive trademark law in nearly a decade. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., No. 13-352, slip op. at 22, 575 U.S. __ (2015). ...more

Federal Circuit Confines De Novo Claim Construction Review by Limiting Consideration to Intrinsic Evidence - In re Papst Licensing...

Addressing for the first time the issue of claim construction since the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Teva, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied a de novo standard of review, giving no deference...more

Appellate Review of Claim Construction Still De Novo if Based Solely on Intrinsic Evidence - Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco...

Two appeals following the Supreme Court’s modification of the standard of appellate review on claim construction in Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (IP Update,Vol. 18, No. 1) indicate that it is largely business as...more

Supreme Court Corner - Q1 2015

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Patent – Decided: January 20, 2015 - Holding: When reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made during its construction of a patent claim,...more

88 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4

"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*

*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.
×