News & Analysis as of

Patent Validity

Dow succeeds on major issues in patent infringement profits case

by Smart & Biggar on

The Federal Court has issued their Public Judgment and Reasons concerning the financial compensation to be paid as a result of earlier patent infringement and validity proceedings between Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) and NOVA...more

Federal Circuit Reverses-in-Part PTAB’s IPR Decisions for Wasica’s Tire Pressure Monitoring Patents

The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the PTAB’s final written decisions on Wasica’s tire pressure monitoring patents in Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., No. 2015-2078 (Fed. Cir....more

Patent Holder Sues CBS and iHeart Over Digital Audio Signal Transmission Systems

On Friday, April 14, 2017, Digital Stream IP, LLC filed two separate complaints in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against CBS Radio Inc. and iHeartMedia, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No....more

Opinions of Counsel Should Be Rendered Timely, and Evidence of Opinions of Counsel Should Be Credible

Omega Patents, LLC (“Omega”) sued CalAmp Corp. (“CalAmp”) for patent infringement in the Middle District of Florida. The jury returned a verdict for Omega, finding all of the asserted claims valid and infringed. On April 5,...more

Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Unasserted Claims

A party can raise lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time during a litigation. Illustrating this point, recently in Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC v. Telular Corporation a patentee saved its unasserted patent...more

PTAB Not Bound By Prior Court Decisions Upholding Exelon Patents

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Novartis v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions invalidating certain claims of two Orange Book-listed Exelon patents. This decision has...more

Federal Circuit Review | March 2017

Federal Circuit Remands IPR Final Decision For Inadequate Obviousness Analysis, Sidesteps Issue of Proper Claim Construction Standard - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1174, the Federal...more

How Technical Must an Improvement be to Survive 101?

The technical nature of a claimed improvement is central to the evaluation of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Two recent district court opinions illustrate that whether or not the claims describe an improvement in the...more

PTAB Avoids Triggering Estoppel by Issuing Concurrent Final Written Decisions

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued concurrent final written decisions upholding the validity of all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan. Inc. IPR2015-01979, Paper 62...more

Post-Grant Review Estoppel – Looking Forward by Looking Back at Estoppel in Inter-Partes and Covered-Business-Method Review

In 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) established new post-issuance procedures for challenging the validity of a granted patent before the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”). Inter partes...more

Preliminary Injunction Maintained Despite Adverse Decision in Parallel Post-Grant Review

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the merits of an injunction in a case where the district court and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) disagreed as to the validity of a patent in parallel proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Matching Claim Language with Label Language Ensnares Infringers

On January 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the judgement that Eli Lilly’s U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ’209 Patent”) was valid and infringed under the doctrine of...more

PTAB Rejects Flawed Inherency Argument Against Drug Composition Patent

by Jones Day on

On February 3, 2017, the PTAB denied a petition by Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Amneal”) to institute an inter partes review of Hospira Inc.’s patent directed to pharmaceutical compositions of the sedative dexmedetomidine...more

Hindsight Cannot be the Thread that Stitches the Prior Art Patches into the Claimed Invention

In Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., v. The Toro Company, [2016-2433, 2016-2514] (February 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed a modified preliminary injunction against Toro’s continued infringement of U.S. Patent No....more

Can You Be Reasonably Certain a Water Balloon Is Substantially Filled? Indefiniteness in Tinnus v. Telebrands

In Tinnus Enterprises, LLV v. Telebrands Enterprises (Fed. Cir. 2016-1410), the CAFC considered whether a claim requiring that a container (think water balloon) be “substantially filled” was indefinite under 35 USC §112....more

PTAB Grants Rare IPR Request for Rehearing in WesternGeco LLC v. PGS Geophysical AS

The PTAB recently granted a request for rehearing and modified the final written decision in WesternGeco LLC v. PGS Geophysical AS, IPR2015-00313, Paper 43 (P.T.A.B., Feb. 3, 2017). This is an extremely rare event....more

No Stay Pending IPR in Brewing Patent Dispute

District court patent defendants often request a parallel inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding at the U.S. Patent Office to challenge the validity of the patent at issue. As such IPR proceedings have the potential to kill...more

Apotex’s Infringement of AstraZeneca’s Omeprazole Formulation Patent Upheld

by Smart & Biggar on

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision released on January 12, 2017 (2017 FCA 9), has affirmed the validity of AstraZeneca’s Patent No. 1,292,693. The patent covered AstraZeneca’s successful product, LOSEC, for...more

Instructions Induced Prescribing Physicians to Infringe

In Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., [2015-2067] (January 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment of inducement of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209, and that the the asserted claims...more

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Patent Invalidation Based on Lack of APA Due Process

by Morgan Lewis on

Inter partes review (IPR) petitioners must ensure adequate notice of arguments against validity; patent owners must preserve rights to defend against all arguments raised by petitioners—even when they arise late in the...more

Federal Circuit Rejects Patentee’s Effort to Narrow Claim Scope

One wrinkle of IPR practice is that patentees are often in the position of advocating a narrower claim scope than the challenger — just the opposite of what is usually seen in district court litigation. The narrowing...more

Medtronic v. Robert Bosch – Has the Federal Circuit closed the door on reviewing IPR institution decisions?

On October 20, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued yet another opinion finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions related to the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) are not subject to judicial review. ...more

District Courts on Willful Infringement Post-Halo

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In two recent decisions addressing the issue of willful infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recalled its mandate, vacated portions of earlier decisions and remanded to the district court the...more

Smartphone Patent War: En Banc Federal Circuit Rebukes Earlier Panel Decision and Reinstates Jury Verdicts for Apple against...

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more

PTAB Rejects Consideration of New Issues on Remand

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the scope of a remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to consider evidence and arguments presented for the first time on remand....more

56 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3
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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!