APPLE INC. v. ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC. [OPINION]- PRECEDENTIAL -
Before Hughes, Mayer and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: Notice letters and related...more
4/19/2022
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Burden of Proof ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
IP License ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Noninfringement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Wireless Technology
INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED -
Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A “generic” motivation to combine that has broad appeal or applicability is not...more
12/30/2021
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Expert Testimony ,
Intel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Qualcomm
MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC v. CROCS, INC.
Before Newman, Dyk, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The purchaser or assignee of all assets and interests of the requester of inter...more
In Re Personal Web Technologies LLC -
Before Wallach, Bryson, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: The Kessler doctrine is not limited to cases...more
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
TQ DELTA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
Summary: Findings of fact at the PTAB must be supported by substantial evidence, and conclusory expert...more
IN RE: IPR LICENSING, INC., -
Before O’Malley, Newman, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Establishing a motivation to combine two references for an obviousness determination in an IPR...more
11/27/2019
/ Admissible Evidence ,
Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inadmissible Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Obviousness ,
Partial Reversal ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand
PHARMA TECH SOLUTIONS, INC. v. LIFESCAN, INC.
Before Moore, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
Summary: Claims for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents...more
FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.
Before Dyk, Linn, and Taranto.
Appeal from the District of Delaware. Summary: Contract interpretation must be applied in determining whether a sublicense survives...more
10/18/2019
/ Ambiguous ,
Appeals ,
Breach of Contract ,
Cease and Desist ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Contract Interpretation ,
Dismissals ,
Extrinsic Evidence ,
IP License ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Sublicenses ,
Vacated
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY v. GAMON PLUS, INC.
Before Prost, Newman and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A proper primary reference can have slight differences in design if, in light of overall...more
10/1/2019
/ Appeals ,
Campbell Soup Company ,
Design Patent ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Section 103 ,
Vacated
GUANGDONG ALISON HI-TECH CO. V. ITC -
Before Wallach, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from United States International Trade Commission.
Summary: A term of degree is not indefinite so long as the written description provides...more
HYLETE LLC v. HYBRID ATHLETICS, LLC -
Before Moore, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Absent exceptional circumstances, an argument raised for the first time on appeal is...more
NOVARTIS PHAMACEUTICALS CORP V. WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS -
Before Stoll, Plager, and Clevenger. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: When a method of using a prior art...more
AVX CORPORATION V. PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC.
Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board.
Summary: Appellants from an IPR decision to the Federal Circuit must have concrete claims...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Prost, Dyk, and Moore. Appeal from District of Delaware.
Summary: A district court’s construction of a claim term that is contrary to the plain language of the claims and usage of the...more
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Judge Newman, Lourie and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: Claims reciting only conventional steps to detect a natural...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The TTAB must consider Applicant’s evidence and argument as to an absence of actual confusion during...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Newman, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the PTAB.
Summary: Patent Owner Vertnetx Inc. (“Virnetx”) was collaterally estopped from arguing that a reference was not a printed publication...more
12/11/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Appellate Record ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Failure To Preserve ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pre-AIA Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Retroactive Application ,
Rule 36
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Prost, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Advertising costs and sales figures are relevant in determining whether a trademark is famous and,...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: Testing for the presence of a bacterium that causes tuberculosis and the...more
10/12/2018
/ Appeals ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Diagnostic Method ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Method Claims ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Product of Nature Doctrine ,
Reaffirmation ,
Section 101 ,
Summary Judgment
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Judges Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: A claim that recites a specific method for navigating through...more
10/11/2018
/ 3D-Automation ,
Abstract Ideas ,
Appeals ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Google ,
Judgment on the Pleadings ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Reaffirmation ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Section 101
Federal Circuit Summary -
En Banc (excl. Chen), Opinion for the court filed by Stoll, joined by Newman, Lourie, Moore, O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District...more
8/2/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 145 ,
Administrative Proceedings ,
American Rule ,
Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
En Banc Review ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Reversal ,
Sua Sponte ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: A passing reference in the prior art to a formulation containing the claimed active...more
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Reyna, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Northern District of California.
Summary: Failure to use the word “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that the term is not a...more
6/7/2018
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Clear Error Standard ,
Indefiniteness ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Rebuttable Presumptions ,
Remand ,
Vacated
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Prost, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. On petition for rehearing en banc.
Summary: Under step two of the Alice framework,...more
6/5/2018
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
En Banc Review ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Question of Fact ,
Question of Law ,
Section 101
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
Summary: Nothing in § 41.41(b)(2) bars a reply brief from addressing new arguments raised in the...more