SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. DROPBOX, INC.
Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: A claim construed to require hardware does not...more
C R BARD INC. v. ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.
Before Reyna, Schall, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Claims that recited printed matter but arguably included an...more
WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC., v. SASSO -
Before Newman, Schall, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
Summary: A federal court properly exercises its discretion to...more
PHYTELLIGENCE, INC. v. WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Before Prost, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Summary: Under Washington law, a contract must be...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
UNILOC 2017 LLC v. HULU, LLC -
Before O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto. O’Malley dissenting. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The Board did not exceed its statutory authority in an inter partes...more
B/E AEROSPACE, INC. v. C&D ZODIAC, INC.
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Common sense may be invoked in obviousness determination if accompanied by reasoned...more
SHOES BY FIREBUG LLC v. STRIDE RITE CHILDREN'S GROUP -
Before Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: In similar claims of two related patents, one preamble was limiting...more
ADIDAS AG v. NIKE, INC.
Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A patent challenger can establish standing to appeal a final written decision in an IPR by showing that...more
Summary: When administrative patent judges are unconstitutionally appointed, their decisions in appeals from inter partes reexamination must be vacated, just like their decisions in inter partes review.
Appellee Cisco and...more
SCHWENDIMANN V. ARKWRIGHT ADVANCED COATING, INC.
Before Wallach, Reyna, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Summary: Exclusionary rights in a patent are a...more
The Decision. On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review (IPR) are not appealable, even if such institution decisions may...more
4/24/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
FACEBOOK, INC., V. WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC -
Before Prost, Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An IPR petitioner may not join itself to an earlier IPR in which it was already a...more
HVLPO2, LLC v. OXYGEN FROG, LLC -
Before Newman, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Summary: It is an abuse of discretion to permit a witness to testify...more
2/10/2020
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
Admissibility ,
Appeals ,
Discovery ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Expert Witness ,
Judgment As A Matter Of Law ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Rule of Evidence 702
PERSION PHARMACEUTICALS LLC v. ALVOGEN MALTA OPERATIONS LTD.
Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: The FDA’s acceptance of safety data for a...more
12/30/2019
/ Appeals ,
Evidence ,
FDA Approval ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Reaffirmation
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
LIQWD, INC. v. L'OREAL USA, INC.
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll.
Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Evidence of copying was relevant to nonobviousness even though the copied feature came from...more
11/2/2019
/ Appeals ,
Disclosure ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
Nonobvious ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Remand ,
Vacated
AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING, INC. v. NEAPCO HOLDINGS LLC -
Before Dyk, Moore, Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Mechanical method claims involving tuning...more
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP.
Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Summary: The Federal Circuit applied collateral...more
9/13/2019
/ Anticompetitive Behavior ,
Antitrust Violations ,
Appeals ,
Capital One ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Counterclaims ,
IP License ,
Monopolization ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Serial Lawsuit Filers ,
Summary Judgment
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
ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. MUSHKIN, INC.
Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Summary: Patent infringement claims in an amended complaint may relate...more
ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC. v. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.
Before Prost, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Broad patent claims were invalid as not...more