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
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
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
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
WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY -
Before Lourie, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Summary: To establish proper venue, a plaintiff must...more
7/11/2019
/ 3M Company ,
Amended Complaints ,
Appeals ,
Frivolous Lawsuits ,
Improper Venue ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Principal Place of Business ,
Venue
IN RE: GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS LLC -
Before Moore, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Written description support for a claimed genus depends on the criticality or importance of the...more
The Federal Circuit’s 2018 decision in Berkheimer v. HP Inc. was likely the most consequential development in patent eligibility since the Supreme Court introduced its two-part eligibility framework in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank...more
FORUM US, INC. v. FLOW VALVE, LLC -
Before Reyna, Schall and Hughes. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Summary: The original patent on which a broadening reissue patent is based...more
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Newman, Dyk, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An injury-in-fact is required to establish Article III standing for judicial review of agency action,...more
2/12/2019
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Biosimilars ,
Clinical Trials ,
Estoppel ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mootness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Standing
Over the last year, several Federal Circuit judges have filed opinions lamenting the state of the case law that interprets the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, Judge Linn...more
In two recent cases, the Federal Circuit addressed the role of factual questions in resolving patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The first case was Berkheimer v. HP Inc. and the second was Aatrix Software v. Green...more
3/19/2018
/ Appeals ,
Genuine Issue of Material Fact ,
Motion for Reconsideration ,
Motion to Amend ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Reaffirmation ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
Summary Judgment ,
Vacated