Latest Posts › Patent Infringement

Share:

Description Prescription

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA V. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: For drug patents, adequate written description of a broad genus...more

Avoiding § 101 Eligibility Issues in Internet-Centric Method Claims

WEISNER v. GOOGLE LLC - Before Stoll, Reyna, and Hughes, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: The specific implementation of an abstract idea, such as improving...more

IPR estoppel “under an unusual set of facts”

Before Stoll, Schall, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas....more

Claims With Clerical Errors Can Be Judicially Corrected and Willfully Infringed

PAVO SOLUTIONS LLC v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. Before: Lourie, Prost, and Chen.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: A court can correct obvious minor...more

Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious

HOYT AUGUSTUS FLEMING V. CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION - Before Lourie, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A claim is obvious where “the proposed combination of [the...more

Claim Element With No Antecedent Basis May Be Broader Than the Same Element With an Antecedent Basis

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. Before Prost, Taranto, and Chen.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary:  Claim that requires the removal of a...more

No Standing in IPR Appeal for Sublicensee’s Speculative Royalty-Based Injuries

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Sublicensee’s theory of royalty-based injury was too speculative to...more

Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges requires showing...more

The Location of Witnesses and Relevant Evidence Still Reigns Supreme in Venue Decisions

In Re: Juniper Networks, Inc. Before Lourie, Bryson, and Taranto. Per Curiam. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: A party’s relatively...more

The Obviousness of Preamble Limitations Can Be a Real Headache for Patent Challengers

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS  - Before Lourie, Bryson and O’Malley.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In claims for methods of using apparatuses or compositions, statements of...more

Presumption of Nexus Between Claims and Commercial Products May Not Apply When Unclaimed Features Are Critical

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY - Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and O’MALLEY. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The presumption of nexus analysis requires the fact finder to consider the...more

Assignors Can Challenge Validity so Long as They Do Not Contradict Assignment Representations

MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC., et al. - Supreme Court of the United States.  Opinion of the Court written by Justice Kagan.  Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.  Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion,...more

Choose Your Words Carefully: Inventors Are Masters of Their Claims, and the Words They Use to Describe and Claim Their Invention...

BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. ITC - Before Newman, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the ITC. Summary: Patentees cannot escape the bounds of their claims by promoting oversimplified characterizations of those claims....more

Hurdles in the Admissibility of Source Code and Expert Reliance on Unauthenticated Source Code

WI-LAN INC. v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION - Before Dyk, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Source code evidence found to be inadmissible hearsay...more

Patterns of Vexatious Litigation Are a Relevant Consideration in Awarding Attorney's Fees in Patent Infringement Cases

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM, LLC - Before PROST, DYK, and WALLACH. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Summary: The grant or denial of...more

Enjoining Speech and the Right to Allege Patent Infringement

MYCO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BLEPHEX, LLC - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan - Summary: Enjoining a patentee from making statements about...more

Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp. [Opinion On Remand]

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes. On remand from the Supreme Court. Summary: Even though the issue of the jury’s award of lost profits was still pending, a party could not reopen the issue of...more

Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Iancu

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The section 315(b) time-bar for IPRs applies even when the underlying complaint alleging infringement...more

Disc Disease Solutions Inc. v. VGH Solutions, Inc.

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Reyna, Wallach, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Summary: A complaint that attaches the asserted patents, specifically...more

19 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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