Defining Indefiniteness: When Are Claim Limitations Contradictory?
In Maxell, Ltd., v. Amperex Technology Limited, Appeal No. 23-1194, the Federal Circuit held that two claim limitations are not contradictory if they...more
The Outcome of the PTAB’s Analysis May Determine Whether the PTAB Engaged in Claim Construction -
In Google LLC v. Ecofactor, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1750, the Federal Circuit held that the outcome of the PTAB’s analysis of...more
3/5/2024
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Claim Construction ,
Google ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Philip Morris ,
Prior Art
Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction -
In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more
12/5/2023
/ Article III ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Life Sciences ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Purdue Pharma ,
Standing
Substantial Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc, Appeal No. 22-1335, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s finding on obviousness is supported by substantial evidence that a skilled...more
IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response -
In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
9/20/2023
/ Claim Construction ,
Ex Parte ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO
Can’t Stop a Bull: Limits of Claim Preclusion -
In Inguran, LLC Dba Stgenetics v. Abs Global, Inc., Genus Plc, Appeal No. 22-1385, the Federal Circuit held that claim preclusion does not bar an induced infringement claim...more
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
7/20/2023
/ Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Medical Devices ,
Medtronic ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
Who Bears the Burden of Proof for IPR Estoppel?
In Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Appeal No. 21-2296, the Federal Circuit held that the patentee has the burden of proving that invalidity grounds not raised in a...more
Inventor’s Testimony Regarding Actual Reduction to Practice Was Sufficiently Corroborated In Dionex Softron GmbH v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2372, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB did not err in...more
Duplicative-Litigation Doctrine: Proper Motion Practice is Essential to Avoid Dismissal of Duplicative Complaints -
In Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., Appeal No. 21-1967, the Federal Circuit held that under the...more
Somebody’s Wrong: PTAB Must Resolve Conflicting Factual Testimony During IPR -
In Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., Appeal No. 21-1179, the Federal Circuit held that, for purposes of determining whether a reference was...more
6/20/2022
/ Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Claim Construction ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Federal Vacancies Reform Act ,
Google ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious -
In Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation, Appeal No. 21-1561, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
4/5/2022
/ Anticipation ,
Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Sua Sponte ,
Substitute Claims
Ordered To Agree: Binding Settlement Agreement Provision Found Despite Absence of Singular, Executed Agreement -
In Plasmacam, Inc. v. Cncelectronics, LLC Appeal No. 21-1689, the Federal Circuit held that an agreement on...more
3/22/2022
/ Appeals ,
Binding Agreements ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Contract Terms ,
Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Prior Art ,
Settlement Agreements
Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive -
In Modernatx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Appeal No. 20-2329, the Federal Circuit held that a presumption of obviousness based on...more
1/11/2022
/ AstraZeneca ,
Generic Drugs ,
Instrinsic Evidence ,
Intel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Moderna Inc. ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm
No Assembly, No Infringement – Federal Circuit Declines to Expand the “Final Assembler” Theory of Direct Infringement
In Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Appeal No. 20-1700 the Federal Circuit held that...more
11/9/2021
/ Abstract Ideas ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Direct Infringement ,
Gaming ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Software
It’s No Secret That a Related Company’s Physical Presence in a Jurisdiction May Not Be Enough For Proper Venue -
In Andra Group, LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, Appeal No. 20-2009, The Federal Circuit held that an...more
9/20/2021
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Eli Lilly ,
Improper Venue ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jurisdiction ,
Nexus ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Physical Presence Test ,
Preamble ,
Principal Place of Business ,
Retailers ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals ,
Victoria Secret
District Court’s Pleading Standard Returns an Error Code in PS4 Battle -
In Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation Of America, Appeal No. 20-2218, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s view that infringement...more
8/18/2021
/ Amended Complaints ,
Claim Construction ,
Failure To State A Claim ,
Gaming ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pleading Standards ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm ,
Sony ,
Sua Sponte
Corresponding Structure Snafu: Lack of Algorithm Renders Claims Indefinite -
In Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Appeal No. 20-1646, the Federal Circuit held that the structure for performing a...more
4/27/2021
/ Algorithms ,
Claim Construction ,
Doctrine of Equivalents ,
Estoppel ,
Indefiniteness ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents
Evidence Supports Prior Art’s Public Accessibility but Not the Board’s Adoption of an Unpresented Theory of Anticipation -
In M & K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,Ltd., Appeal No. 20-1160, the Federal Circuit...more
3/26/2021
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Anticipation ,
Article III ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Section 102
Grammar School: District Court Erred in Departing from Claim Language to Adopt Construction that Encompassed All Disclosed Embodiments -
In Simo Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong Ucloudlink Network, Appeal No.19-2411, the...more
No Shortcuts to the “Reasonable Pertinence” Analysis in the Analogous Art Inquiry -
In Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, Appeal No. 20-1104, the Federal Circuit determination as to whether a reference is...more
12/23/2020
/ Analogous Art ,
Claim Construction ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
POSITA ,
Prior Art ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP
Expiration of a Patent Does Not Always Trigger Application of Phillips Standard on IPR Appeal -
In Immunex Corporation v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Appeal No. 19-1749, the Federal Circuit held that expiration of a patent...more
11/13/2020
/ Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
First-to-File ,
Induced Infringement ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Phillips Standard ,
Prior Art
Unconstitutionally Appointed Judges Cannot Decide Ex Parte Appeals -
In In Re Boloro Global Limited, Appeal No. 19-2349, When administrative patent judges are unconstitutionally appointed, their decisions in ex...more
9/1/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Claim Construction ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Eleventh Amendment ,
Ex Parte ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Reexamination ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Prosecution History ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Remand ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
Vacated
IPR Petitioners May Not Raise Appointments Clause Challenges Under Arthrex -
In CIENA CORPORATION v. OYSTER OPTICS, LLC, Appeal No. 19-2117, affirmatively petitioning for IPR waived the petitioner’s Appointments Clause...more
7/1/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Clear and Convincing Evidence ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
Secret Third-Party Processes May Not Trigger Pre-AIA § 102 Public Knowledge or Use Bars -
In Basf Corporation v. SNF Holding Company, Appeal No. 19-1243, the Federal Circuit ruled that a third party’s sale of products...more