This BLOG has written numerous times on issues related to contract formation. See, e.g., [here], [here], [here], [here] and [here]. Briefly stated, “[t]o create a binding contract, there must be a manifestation of mutual...more
On September 15, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in IQASR v. Wendt, found that a district court did not err in its scrutiny of the extrinsic and intrinsic evidence presented to find U.S. Patent No....more
NEVRO CORPORATION v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION - Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Functional claim term directed at avoiding a side...more
In its recent decision, Fiber, LLC. v. Ciena Corp., No. 2019-1005 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a reminder that the structure necessary to satisfy the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s invalidity and infringement judgments for patents directed to a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, finding that a patent claim reciting a...more
The legal meaning of the transition language “consisting essentially of” is well-established in Federal Circuit case law and is generally construed to mean that the composition or formulation (a) necessarily includes the...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A two-dimensional drawing of a three-dimensional object may meet the enablement and definiteness...more
In Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., 803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit directly acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120...more
Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) lost a ruling that competitor NOVA Chemical Corporation and NOVA Chemicals Inc. (collectively “NOVA”) infringed claims of two Dow patents when the Federal Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s...more
On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2014-1393, clarifying that for meeting the definiteness requirement of claims, a general...more
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
Congress v SCtPatent litigation reform has been on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee agenda, with the recent reintroduction of legislation seeking to address patent litigation abuses and a hearing examining recent U.S....more
The Supreme Court recently “conclude[d] that the Federal Circuit’s formulation, which tolerates some ambiguous claims but not others, does not satisfy the statute’s definiteness requirement.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig...more
Supreme Court Sets New Indefiniteness Standard - In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., Appeal No. 13-169, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Federal Circuit’s reversal of summary judgment because the...more
New Nautilus Indefiniteness Standard Justifies Submission of Expert Evidence at Markman Hearing - The court granted defendants' motion to supplement their claim construction briefing with an expert declaration...more
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Nautilus v. Biosig, recently reversed a Federal Circuit ruling that a patent is valid as long as the description of what it claims is not “insolubly ambiguous.” The Supreme Court’s decision, which...more
Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothier, LLC - Case Number: 1:13-cv-02157-DLC (Dkt. 58) - Judge Cote construed claims in six design patents, and determined that two of the patents were indefinite. The patents at...more
U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Federal Circuit Standards For Patent Inducement Infringement And Indefiniteness – In two decisions on June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court materially changed the standards for patent...more
On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., rejecting the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” test for patent claim indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112, and...more
The US Supreme Court issued two anticipated decisions on June 2, 2014, relating to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's standards for indefiniteness and induced infringement. In the first, Nautilus, Inc....more
On June 2, 2014, the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., a case that focused on the standard for compliance with the “definiteness” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2,...more
On June 2, 2014, in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s test for determining indefiniteness of a patent claim as “lack[ing] the precision that §...more