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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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