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
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
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
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
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
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
BAXALTA INC. V. GENENTECH, INC.
Before Moore, Plager, and Wallach. Appeal from the District of Delaware
Summary: A district court erred by interpreting a specification’s description of an “antibody” as a definition,...more
NEVILLE v. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Summary: The Federal Circuit affirmed a construction of...more
EGENERA, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
Before Prost, Stoll, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: A patentee that successfully petitioned to correct a patent’s...more
9/2/2020
/ Claim Construction ,
Denial of Institution ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Estoppel ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand
PLASTIC OMNIUM ADVANCED INNOVATION AND RESEARCH V. DONGHEE AMERICA, INC.
Before Reyna, Newman, and Clevenger. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: The patentee’s lexicography of...more
IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC v. GILEAD SCIENCES INC.
Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Synthesizing and screening tens of thousands of...more
11/4/2019
/ Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Drug Compounding ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
JMOL ,
Motion for JMOL ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Section 112 ,
Written Descriptions
MYMAIL, LTD. v. OOVOO, LLC -
Before Lourie, O’Malley and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: If the parties litigating a § 101 challenge at the pleading...more
BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC -
Before Wallach, Moore, and Chen. Consolidated appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the U.S. District Court for the District of New...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Moore, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the Southern District of California.
Summary: District court improperly held that claims were directed to a natural law where the claims recited a...more