Latest Posts › Patent Litigation

Share:

Later-Filed, Earlier-Expiring Patent Not an ODP Reference

Addressing invalidity due to obvious-type double patenting (ODP) based on later-filed-related patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s application of In re Cellect (Fed. Cir. 2023)...more

Stud-y Harder: Domestic Industry Must Be Established for Each Asserted Patent

Addressing a final determination by the US International Trade Commission of no violation of § 337, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the complainant had not satisfied the economic prong of the...more

ITC Shines Light on DI: Complainant Can’t Aggregate Investments Across Patents, Prongs

Addressing a determination by its chief administrative law judge (CALJ) finding a violation of § 337, the US International Trade Commission reversed and held that the complainant had not satisfied the economic prong of the...more

R&D Expenditures Need Only Relate to Subset of Domestic Industry Product

Addressing a decision by the US International Trade Commission finding a violation of Section 337 based on importation of certain TV products, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the patent holder had...more

No Smoking Gun Here: Soliciting Input Sufficient to Satisfy Commission’s Statutory Obligation

Addressing a decision by the US International Trade Commission finding a violation of Section 337, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the Commission on a slew of issues, including its determination...more

Present-Tense Claim Terms Not Sufficient to Require Actual Operation

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US International Trade Commission (Commission) decision that found no violation of Section 337 due to noninfringement. The Court disagreed with the Commission that...more

Patent Invalidity Doesn’t Demonstrate Good Faith for Consent Order Violation

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US International Trade Commission (ITC) decision upholding a civil penalty for violating a consent order based on a patent that was later found to be invalid...more

Judge Albright Issues Updated Standing Order for Patent Cases

On October 8, 2021, Judge Alan Albright of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a new standing order governing proceedings for patent cases, which the Court designated as version 3.5 following...more

US Courts Can Compel Parties to Transfer Ownership of Foreign Patents

Addressing a district court decision agreeing to transfer ownership of certain US patents, but declining to do likewise for the related foreign patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that US courts...more

Knowledge and Control of Importation Can Lead to § 337 Violation

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US International Trade Commission (ITC) decision that a respondent qualified as an importer under § 337 despite not being the actual importer of record, based on the...more

A Lot of Hot Air? Obviousness Testimony Must Come from POSITA

Addressing a jury verdict of invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in allowing trial testimony regarding obviousness from a lay witness, and remanded...more

Patent Sublicense Does Not Automatically Survive Termination of Principal License

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a dismissal based on a license defense, explaining that it was improper to dismiss until the district court had interpreted the license agreement....more

Rule Against Partial Institution of IPRs Can Mean No Institution at All

Addressing a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision vacating an earlier partial institution of inter partes reviews (IPRs) in view of an intervening Supreme Court decision against such partial institutions, the US...more

No Competitor Standing for Appeal of IPR Decision Upholding Claims

Again addressing the question of appellate standing for inter partes review (IPR) decisions, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an IPR petitioner did not show a sufficient injury to confer Article III...more

Domestic Industry May Include Old Investments with Sufficient Nexus to Continuing Expenditures

Addressing orders entered by the International Trade Commission (ITC) against imported ATMs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that expenditures up to 10 years before the complaint may be used to establish...more

No Competitor Standing for Appeal of IPR Decision Upholding Unasserted Claims

Addressing whether standing to appeal an unfavorable inter partes review (IPR) decision could be based on the competitor standing doctrine, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the IPR petitioner did not...more

Merely Contemplating Alternative Embodiment May Satisfy Written Description

Addressing a decision granting summary judgment of invalidity due to lack of sufficient written description and noninfringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that a patent holder’s contentions...more

Cat on a Hot Asphalt Roof? PTAB’s BRI Is Too Narrow

Addressing a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) decision upholding patentability of the challenged claims in an inter partes review, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the PTAB’s broadest...more

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Is Not Broadest Possible Interpretation

Addressing an unpatentability decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that turned on claim construction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that the broadest reasonable...more

Third Time’s Not the Charm for IPR Petitioner Adding Known References to Previously Rejected Prior Art Combination

Addressing whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) based on a third petition by the same petitioner against the same patent claims, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied institution both as an...more

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

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

Inconsistent and Confusing Specification Language Does Not Support Broad Claim Construction - Trustees of Columbia Univ. v....

Addressing various claim constructions that led to a stipulated judgment of non-infringement and partial invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two claim constructions and a related...more

Motion to Amend in IPR Must Establish Patentability Over Prior Art from Original Prosecution - Prolitec, Inc. v. ScentAir...

Addressing whether a patentee must show that proposed claim amendments in an inter partes review (IPR) overcome not only the prior art in the IPR but also the prior art from the original prosecution, the U.S. Court of Appeals...more

PTAB Grants Patent Owner Request for Surreply to Defend Reduction to Practice Claim - HTC Corp. v. NFC Technology, LLC

Addressing whether a patent owner may file a surreply brief in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted the request, but limited the size of the surreply and the scope...more

“Mechanism” Claim Term Found to Be an Indefinite Means-Plus-Function Element - Media Rights Techs. v. Capital One Financial Corp.

Addressing whether a claim term was a means-plus-function term under the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit construed the disputed term as a...more

36 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

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