Evidence Patents

News & Analysis as of

The “Totality of the Specification” Can Override a District Court’s Factual Findings - Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp.

Giving little deference to the district court’s factual findings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s claim construction in a long-running dispute relating to a patent for labeled and...more

USPTO makes changes to AIA post grant proceedings

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will be making a series of rule changes to America Invents Act reviews. Some will be effective immediately, others will be implemented in phases. The rule changes are a direct response to...more

Board Signals Willingness to Admit Questionable Evidence in Close Cases - Fujian Newland Computer Co., Ltd., v. Hand Held Prods.,...

Addressing the standard for admitting evidence in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied three motions to exclude as part of...more

Expert Is Not Permitted to Testify to Alternate Hypothetical Negotiation Dates Where No Hypothetical Negotiation Was Conducted for...

After the parties submitted expert reports in this patent infringement action, Ford objected to Eagle Harbor's damage expert's expected testimony and demonstratives. Ford objected to Eagle Harbor's evidence because it...more

Standard of Review for Claim Construction on Appeal

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the standard of review for claim construction on appeal in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 12-854. The Court held “[w]hen reviewing a district...more

Expert Witness Testimony Normally Improper for Preliminary Response - B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. Mag Aerospace Industries, LLC

Clarifying what is impermissible “new” evidence for a Patent Owner Preliminary Response in an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) ordered that the patent owner’s exhibit, in the form...more

Serial Objections to Evidence Are Not Required if Supplemental Evidence Is Filed and Served

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concluded that a party need not renew an objection to evidence if...more

PTAB Applies Balancing Test in Deciding Motions to Seal Evidence

Search Am., Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence, LLC - In an recent covered business method (CBM) patent review proceeding, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied the parties’...more

Independent Corroboration Required To Prove Conception

Microsoft Corp. v. SurfCast, Inc. - Addressing the requirements for antedating prior art, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled all claims of a challenged patent unpatentable,...more

Warning: No Sandbagging Experimental Evidence

Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Millenium Biologix, LLC - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has explained that an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner should fully support...more

Timeliness – The Devil Is in the Details (a.k.a. Rules)

GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc. - In an order issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), the Board expunged exhibits from the records of five related cases on the basis of...more

Nexium District Court Takes Pioneering Approach to Preliminary Jury Charge

How does a court explain the complicated area of law at the intersection of patent settlements and antitrust law to a group of lay-jurors in the wake of Actavis? The district court’s approach to preliminary jury instructions...more

“Why, I declare” … Proper Use of Evidentiary Declarations under New (Post-AIA) Rule 37 C.F.R. 1.130

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law on September 16, 2011. While the AIA alters U.S. patent practice in several ways, perhaps the most significant change brought about by the law is the switch from a...more

Rare Grant (in Part) of an IPR Motion to Exclude

Motions to Exclude Evidence have been one of the features of inter partes review practice that have, to date, had a less significant effect than expected. Very few motions have been granted, largely because the Board...more

No Surprises At Hearing; Demonstratives Must Only Contain Evidence of Record

In TriVascular, Inc. v. Shaun Samuels, IPR2013-00493, Paper 39 (September 2, 2014) the Board sustained a number of objections to the patent owner’s demonstrative exhibits....more

You have to Object to Exclude

In K40 Electronics, LLC v. Escort Inc., IPR2013-00203, Paper 46 (August 27, 2014), the Board denied the patent owner’s motion to exclude. The Board first review the proper procedure for objecting to, and moving to exclude,...more

Expert Testimony Must Be Supported by Evidence

Corning Inc. v. DSMIP Assets B.V. - The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued final written decisions in 10 inter partes review (IPR) challenges. Although early IPR decisions generally have sustained...more

Harman v. Honeywell International

The Supreme Court of Virginia’s recent opinion in Harman v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 130627 (June 5, 2014) contains a wealth of analysis on a number of evidentiary rules that every trial lawyer will likely...more

Invalidity Expert Excluded Where Expert Failed to Conduct a Proper Written Description Analysis

Plaintiff Trading Technologies International, Inc. ("TT") moved to strike the invalidity expert report of the defendant, CQG. TT made two arguments its motion: " that Dr. Mellor failed to conduct a proper written description...more

IP Newsflash - May 2014

Supplemental Information Containing Petitioner’s Statements Allowed in IPR - A PTAB panel has granted a patent owner’s (owner) motion to submit supplemental information in an inter partes review (IPR). A motion to...more

IP Newsflash - May 2014

Improper Submission of New Evidence Undermines Patent Challenge - In its final written decision, a PTAB panel granted a patent owner’s (owner) motion to exclude evidence submitted by a petitioner in support of its...more

On Remand, Federal Circuit Comes Around to Supreme Court’s Way of Thinking

Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. - On a remand from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, addressing the issue of the sufficiency of infringement evidence, affirmed a district...more

Patentee Blindsided By Partially Uncorroborated Evidence

Evidence of what occurred over 15 years ago was ultimately accepted despite being only partially corroborated. As a result, many of the claims from Damorgold’s patent have been held invalid for lack of novelty based on that...more

Evidence in Support of Petition for Venue Transfer Must Be Sufficiently Specific - In re Apple Inc.; In re Barnes & Noble

In two decisions from identical panels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus petitions seeking to direct two district courts to vacate their denials of petitioners’ motions to transfer their...more

PersonalWeb v. Google: Duty to Preserve Emails Began When Patent Was Acquired

PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC ("PersonalWeb") filed a patent infringement action against Google for infringement of its "Truenames" patents. Google filed a motion for sanctions based on a contention that PersonalWeb...more

54 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, 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.
×