News & Analysis as of

Noninfringement

District of Delaware Issues a Bellwether Decision on Bellwether Trials

To narrow issues and promote settlement in “oversized patent cases,” on July 31, 2017, Chief Judge Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware issued an order that indicates a preference for bellwether trials on all issues for...more

Federal Circuit Review - June 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Inter Partes Reexamination Estoppel Attaches On Claim-by-Claim Basis for New Requests and Pending Proceedings - In In re Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2016-1092, 2016-1172, the Federal Circuit held that the...more

Cover All Your Bases in ITC Discovery

by Jones Day on

Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1016 (May 31, 2017), is a good lesson in covering all your bases. Relying on a non-infringement decision by ALJ Pender, respondents assumed that they did...more

Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Impression Products v. Lexmark will force patentees to get what ?they can in their initial sale or licensing of patented products in both the U.S. and abroad, ?knowing that they will have to rely...more

Court Questions Applicability of Function Way Result Test In Chemical Cases

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., the Federal Circuit reviewed a preliminary injunction based in part on a finding of likelihood of success in establishing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents....more

Statements Made in an IPR Can Lead to Prosecution Disclaimer

by Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit held that statements made by a patent owner in an IPR, whether before or after institution, can be considered during claim construction in district court litigation and relied upon to support a finding of...more

CAFC Finds ANDA Infringement Despite Differences Between FDA Labeling And Claim Language

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a non-precedential decision issued in Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Breckenridge, and...more

Failure to Provide an Unconditional Covenant Not to Sue Kept Case and Controversy Alive

In ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp., [2016-1357] (May 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment invalidating claims 24 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. RE44153....more

Patent Owner Statements During an IPR Disclaimed Claim Scope

In Aylus Networks, Inc., v. Apple, [2016-1599] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 44,412 on systems and methods for implementing digital home networks...more

Dubious Patent Trolls and a Crowdfunded Infringement Defense

We’ve spent time discussing the patent troll phenomenon in the past. Patent trolls are less pejoratively referred to as non-practicing entities, because they do not make or use the inventions covered by their patents. ...more

Be Careful What You Wish For: Federal Circuit Says Statements Made During IPR Can Limit Scope of Patent

by K&L Gates LLP on

The Federal Circuit on May 11, 2017, addressing the question for the first time, held that statements made by a patent owner during inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) can...more

Patent Owner’s Statements in IPR May Constitute a “Disclaimer” of Claim Scope in Litigation

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding, whether before or after an institution decision, can be...more

Amgen v. Hospira: Hospira Files a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement

by Goodwin on

Last week, Hospira filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement asserting that “all of Hospira’s accused erythropoietin drug substance batches are protected by the safe harbor provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)...more

In Case of First Impression, Federal Circuit Rules that a Patent Owner’s Statements in an IPR Proceeding Can Create Prosecution...

by BakerHostetler on

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit ruled that a patent owner’s statements during an inter partes review (IPR), even if before an institution decision, can...more

Pre-Sale Use of Data Storage Trademark Not Enough to Secure Priority Rights

A Massachusetts federal court recently found multiple early uses of a sought-after trademark insufficient to confer priority of rights. The dispute concerned two technology companies, Nexsan and EMC, each seeking to use the...more

ALJ Finds ITC Remedial Orders Unenforceable

by Jones Day on

We previously wrote about the uphill battle Respondent Eko Brands faced in an enforcement proceeding after it defaulted in the underlying investigation. The ALJ found during the proceedings that res judicata barred its...more

Issue Preclusion: Patent Owner Does Not Get a Do Over to Assert the Claims Against Similar Products

In Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co., [2016-1982] (April 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,428,933. In prior litigation in which Phil-Insul asserted the...more

Angiomax Patents Limited To Example

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc., the Federal Circuit construed composition claims of two Angiomax patents as requiring the recited “batches” to be made by a specific “efficient mixing” process illustrated in one of the...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - April 2017

by WilmerHale on

Affirming judgment of noninfringement of one patent and reversing judgment of infringement of another patent. All asserted claims required a particular process step, construed as defined by one example in the specification,...more

Don’t Exalt Slogans over Real Meaning; Find the Claim Construction that Naturally Aligns with the Specification and Prosecution...

In The Medicines Company v. Mylan, Inc., [2015-1113, 2015-1151, 2015-1181] (April 6, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,598,343, and reversed a bench trial...more

Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases

In SCA v. First Quality Baby Products, the Supreme Court holds that laches should not be available as a defense in patent cases, refusing to concur with the Circuit’s en banc holding that the Patent Act’s 6-year limitation on...more

Burden Shifted to Accused Infringer to Show Accused Product Not Made by Patented Process

A judge has ordered that an alleged infringer’s product must be presumed to have been made using a patented process, thereby shifting the burden of proof on the issue of infringement from the patent holder to the alleged...more

Troll Gets Rolled Because Its Disclaimer Statements Were Undersold

In MPHJ Tech v. Ricoh Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed a conclusion of anticipation and obviousness from an Inter Partes Review involving US 8,488,173 (‘173). The content of the art was not really in dispute. Rather, the...more

8th Circuit Trademark Year in Review 2016

I recently presented a CLE at the Bar Association of Metropolitan Saint Louis that covered many of the most important trademark cases from 2016 that were decided in the 8th Circuit. Here are some of the key teachings from...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - February 2017

by WilmerHale on

MPHJ Technology Investments v. Ricoh Americas Corporation (No. 2016-1243, 2/13/17) (Newman, Lourie, O'Malley) - Newman, J. Affirming PTAB decision in IPR that claims directed to document managing system and process were...more

108 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5
Cybersecurity

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

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