News & Analysis as of

Patent Validity

Merely Because Petitioner Changes its Mind is not Enough to Stop Inter Partes Reexamination

In In Re: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P., [2016-1830] (May 10. 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination in Inter Partes Reexamination, that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,071, directed to methods...more

Why Design Patents Are Surviving Post-Grant Challenges

As of January 2017, the institution rate for Patent Trial and Appeal Board trials involving design patents was 37 percent. That is significantly lower than every other technology area and makes design patents the only...more

Federal Circuit’s Primer on Equivalence Infringement of Chemical Process Patents

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In an appeal characterized as “unusual,” the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, holding it likely that plaintiff patent holder would succeed on the merits its claim of infringement of a patent...more

PTAB: No Estoppel Because A Skilled Searcher Could Not Have Found Company Brochures

In a Final Written Decision in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2016-00130, Paper 35 (P.T.A.B. May 8, 2017), the PTAB found that petitioner Johns Manville (JM) was not estopped from raising its own company...more

PTAB Provides Another Estoppel Datapoint — No Estoppel for Petitioner Using Its Own Documents

In Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) prevents the petitioner from challenging the validity of a patent in an IPR on any “ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably...more

In Helsinn Healthcare, the Federal Circuit Offers Guidance on the On-Sale Bar under the AIA

The sale of a product prior to filing a patent application, or “on-sale bar,” has long been a potential barrier to obtaining a patent in the United States. Especially in the biotechnology space, which can involve a long...more

Lack of Proof That Infringement was “But For” Cause of Lost Sales or Price Erosion Defeats Permanent Injunction

In Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc., [2016-1585, 2016-1618] (April 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,530,250, 7,432,589, and 7,462,870, directed to LED...more

Willfulness Can Be Predicated on Brief Between Declaratory Judgment Filing and Counterclaim

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In a complex 42-page decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed issues of assignor estoppel, claim indefiniteness, subject matter eligibility, claim preclusion, willfulness and lost profits damages...more

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

64 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!