The district court erred by admitting untimely expert testimony on noninfringement and by refusing to grant a new trial after the jury found noninfringement. Trudell Medical International (“Trudell”) sued D R Burton...more
2/14/2025
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Daubert Standards ,
Discovery ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Remand ,
Rule of Evidence 702
Before Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: No live controversy existed over patent claims omitted from infringement contentions prior to a...more
Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Claim limitations requiring communications to be “encrypted” or to deliver “program code” were not subject to the printed matter...more
INGURAN, LLC, DBA STGENETICS v. ABS GLOBAL, INC., GENUS PLC -
Before Lourie, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Summary: Claim preclusion does not bar...more
UNITED CANNABIS CORPORATION V. PURE HEMP COLLECTIVE INC.
Before Lourie, Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Summary: The Federal Circuit affirmed the...more
LINE-NETICS, LLC v. NU TSAI CAPITAL LLC -
Before Lourie, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.
Summary: Courts cannot enjoin speech by patentholders to third parties...more
HAWKS TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC v. CASTLE RETAIL, LLC -
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
Summary: A court’s failure to exclude...more
TREEHOUSE AVATAR LLC v. VALVE CORPORATION -
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Summary: The district court did not abuse its discretion in...more
Summary: The USPTO policy of refusing to consider Requests for Director Rehearing of decisions denying institution of IPR and PGR does not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution....more
CAREDX, INC. V. NATERA, INC.
Before Lourie, Bryson, and Hughes -
Summary: Expert testimony that steps of challenged patent claims were unconventional failed to preclude summary judgment of ineligibility where...more
7/19/2022
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Alice/Mayo ,
Claim Construction ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Section 101 ,
Summary Judgment
TIGER LILY VENTURES LTD. v. BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.
Before Lourie, Bryson, and Prost. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A trademark associated with a...more
LITTELFUSE, INC. v. MERSEN USA EP CORP.
Before Prost, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: The Federal Circuit vacated a claim construction that violated...more
ALARM.COM INC. v. HIRSHFELD -
Before Taranto, Chen, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Summary: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) permits judicial...more
IN RE STEVE ELSTER -
Before Dyk, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment by refusing to register the trademark TRUMP...more
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC.
Before Moore, Linn, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: A patent application that was silent about a...more
1/5/2022
/ Appeals ,
Generic Drugs ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Novartis ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Written Descriptions
INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A.
Before Lourie, Linn, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Claims of a continuation application were anticipated because they were not...more
TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS Before Prost, O’Malley, and Stoll.
Appeal from the Eastern District of Texas.
Summary: An applicant’s arguments distinguishing prior art during patent...more
Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Sprint Commn’s Co. et al Before Prost, O’Malley, and Stoll.
Appeal from the Eastern District of Texas.
Summary: A patentee’s extensive citations to evidence failed to avoid summary judgment of...more
10/14/2021
/ Claim Construction ,
Evidence ,
Indefiniteness ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Sprint ,
Summary Judgment ,
Telecommunications ,
Verizon
PIANO FACTORY GROUP, INC. v. SCHIEDMAYER CELESTA GMBH -
Before Prost, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The appointments of TTAB judges do not share the constitutional defect...more
BELCHER PHARMACEUTICALS v. HOSPIRA, INC.
Before Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the District of Delaware.
Summary: A patentee committed inequitable conduct by advancing an argument during patent prosecution...more
9/2/2021
/ Failure To Disclose ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Hospira ,
Inequitable Conduct ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
LUBBY HOLDINGS LLC v. CHUNG -
Before Dyk, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the Central District of California.
Summary: Specific charges of infringement by a specific accused product are required to provide actual...more
SEABED GEOSOLUTIONS (US) INC. v. MAGSEIS FF LLC.
Before Moore, Linn, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Where a claim term’s meaning is clear from the intrinsic evidence, no extrinsic evidence...more
Before the United States Supreme Court. Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Summary: A statute preventing the PTO Director from...more
6/25/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
NEW VISION GAMING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. V. SG GAMING, INC.
Before Newman, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two CBM decisions under...more
SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION -
Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A finding during inter partes reexamination that two references would not be combined...more