Extrinsic Evidence

News & Analysis as of

News from Abroad: Canada's Federal Court Questions No File Wrapper Estoppel on Claim Construction

The Supreme Court of Canada in Free World Trust v Électro Santé Inc, 2000 SCC 66 rejected the use of extrinsic documents such as file wrappers (patent prosecution histories) for claim construction, on the basis that allowing...more

Construing Markush Group Claims

In Multilayer Stretch Cling Film v. Berry Plastics, the Federal Circuit provided a detailed discussion of the construction of claims that use Markush group language. The decision emphasizes the closed nature of the...more

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reaffirms Four-Corners Rule for Insurers’ Duty to Defend

An insurer’s decision whether to defend a lawsuit against its insured can be a critical issue involving tens of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for Wisconsin companies who are sued. The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently...more

Colorado Supreme Court Limits Use of Extrinsic Evidence and Reasonable Expectations Doctrine

On Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, No. 14SC99 (Colo. June 20, 2016), holding that extrinsic evidence can only be used to interpret ambiguous policy language,...more

Canons of Claim Construction to the Rescue

In Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC, [2015-1425, 2015-1438] (May 31, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction and resulting judgment of non-infringement. At...more

Consistent Usage and Disclaimer in Intrinsic Record Trump Anything in Extrinsic Record

In David Netzer Consulting Engineer LLC, v. Shell Oil Company, [2015-2086] (May 27, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent 6,677,496 on a process for the coproduction of...more

Intellectual Property Newsletter - January/February 2016

2015 U.S. Trademark Developments Every Food and Beverage Lawyer Should Know - In 2015, U.S. courts provided trademark practitioners with several issues to discuss and debate. Identified and summarized below are the top...more

Another Post-Tackett Ruling Denying Retiree Health Benefits

A district court in West Virginia recently held that retirees were not entitled to lifetime health benefits under the clear and unambiguous language of the relevant collective bargaining agreements. Shortly after Constellium...more

What are the Rules on Indefiniteness of a Patent Specification under 35 USC § 112?

While the question was answered by the Supreme Court in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), the Federal Circuit, in The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada), (2014-1431,...more

White & Case ECB News – Issue 2, 2015: Understanding Your "Boilerplate"

Whilst most people associate boilerplates with mundane provisions in the back of award agreements and stock incentive plans, their importance to employers in providing security and flexibility when setting up plans should not...more

Court Holds Extrinsic Evidence Was Inadmissible

As generally understood, the parol evidence rule prohibits the introduction of extrinsic evidence to alter, vary or add to the terms of an integrated agreement. “Parol” is derived from the French word, “parole” meaning...more

Shame on You Productions, Inc. v. Banks - USDC, C.D. California, August 14, 2015

Plaintiff Shame on You Productions, Inc., was assigned a screenplay titled “Darci’s Walk of Shame” by its author, Dan Rosen. Shame on You sued defendants, including actress Elizabeth Banks, for copyright infringement and...more

Tenth Circuit: Legal Characterization of Facts in Underlying Complaint Insufficient to Trigger the Duty to Defend

On July 30, 2015, the Tenth Circuit affirmed that an insurer that issued a commercial general liability policy with an auto exclusion for bodily injury arising out of the loading and unloading of an auto did not have a duty...more

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

Real World: An Update from Dechert's London Finance and Real Estate Group - July 2015: Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants Under...

Under a building scheme, where restrictive covenants are imposed on the original plot owners within a development for the mutual benefit of the plots, subsequent owners may enforce those covenants against each other. In...more

Now is the time to reevaluate commercial sales contracts that incorporate other documents by reference

Legal documents of all kinds – everything from wills and trusts to commercial sales agreements – often reference other documents. This “incorporation by reference” comes with certain risks. Historically, courts looked beyond...more

New Jersey State Court Rules Damage Caused by Superstorm Sandy Not Subject to Flood Sublimit

In a decisive victory for policyholders, Judge Thomas Vena of the Essex County Superior Court in New Jersey ruled that significant damages incurred by Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (“PSEG”) as a result of storm surge...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

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

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

The Supreme Court's New Standard of Appellate Review for Claim Construction

On January 20, 2015, the United States Supreme Court redefined the standard of appellate review for claim construction. In Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court vacated well-established Federal Circuit...more

Practice Considerations Post Teva v. Sandoz

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op. 574 U.S. __ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that underlying factual issues resolved while formally construing a disputed patent claim term at the...more

Employee Benefits Developments - January 2015

IRS Publishes FAQs Regarding Rollovers of After-Tax Contributions. In the December 2014 issue of Employee Benefits Developments, we reported on IRS Notice 2014-54, which allows participants to direct and allocate after-tax...more

Supreme Court Changes Appellate Review Standard For Claim Construction

This week, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit's long standing practice of applying a de novo review standard to district court claim construction decisions. Instead, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. V. Sandoz,...more

Peeking Around Four Corners: Wisconsin Insurers Have Found a Way to Use Extrinsic Evidence to Excuse the Defense of Pending Claims

It is a truism that a liability insurer’s duty to defend is extremely broad—especially in states that apply the “four corners rule.” Under that rule, the insurer has a duty to defend whenever the underlying complaint alleges...more

36 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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.
×