On December 16, 2013, in Motorola Mobility LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader,* Prost, Taranto) affirmed the Commission's determination, inter alia, that Motorola violated 19...more
[T]here is no "supplier exception" to the on-sale bar, [and] it is of no consequence that the "commercial offer for sale" [was] made by [the patentee's] own supplier and was made to [the patentee] itself....more
While an adverse claim construction generally cannot, alone, form the basis for an exceptional case finding, [a] party cannot assert baseless infringement claims and must continually assess the soundness of pending...more
While the facts may show that damages would be reparable, this assumption is not sufficient [for purposes of a preliminary injunction analysis]....more
An expert witness may not testify to subject matter beyond the scope of the witness's expert report unless the failure to include that information in the report was "substantially justified or harmless."...more
[E]vidence relating to all four Graham factors -- including objective evidence of secondary considerations -- must be considered before determining whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of skill in the...more
Where a court holds a claim obvious without making findings of secondary considerations, the lack of specific consideration of secondary considerations ordinarily requires a remand....more
[P]ermitting state courts to adjudicate disparagement cases (involving alleged false statements about U.S. patent rights) could result in inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts [but] this possibility of...more
On May 13, 2013, in Bowman v. Monsanto Co., the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the district court's judgment that Bowman infringed U.S. Patents No. 5,352,605 and No. RE39,247, which related to...more
On May 7, 2013, in Baron Servs., Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Dyk, Reyna, Prost*) vacated and remanded the district court's summary judgment that MWI did not...more
On May 1, 2013, in Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader,* Prost, Moore) affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded-in-part the district court's judgment that...more
On April 19, 2013, in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman,* Prost, Reyna) affirmed the district court's ruling that prior litigation collaterally estopped Aspex...more
On April 19, 2013, in Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Lourie,* Dyk, Reyna) reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court's summary...more
On April 4, 2013, in Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Lourie,* Moore, O'Malley) reversed the district court's judgment that Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corp. infringed U.S....more
On March 26, 2013, in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Lourie, O'Malley, Reyna*) affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part and...more
On March 15, 2013, in Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman, Clevenger, Moore*) affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part and remanded the district court's summary judgment...more
On March 13, 2013, in Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int' Game Tech., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (O'Malley,* Bryson, Linn) affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court's...more
On March 13, 2013, in SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader,* Lourie, Daniel) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that the defendants infringed U.S. Patents...more
On February 20, 2013, in Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Dyk, Moore,* Reyna) reversed and remanded the district court's summary judgment that Brilliant did...more
On February 14, 2013, in, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reyna, Bryson, Wallach*) reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court's judgment following a bench trial that Watson did not infringe...more
"[Neither the Declaratory Judgment Act nor Federal Circuit jurisprudence creates] a federal cause of action for assignor estoppel."
On February 11, 2013, in Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Nagata, the U.S. Court of...more
[A] sua sponte dismissal of a complaint "is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised."...more
[Where] the appellant has identified no relationship between the valuation placed on the appeal and the issues the appellant wishes to challenge, the parties have simply placed a "side bet" on the outcome of the appeal, which...more
§ 251 suggests to a potential licensee that -- in the absence of contrary language in the licensing agreement -- a license under the patent that is not directed to any specific claims, field of use or other limited right will...more
[A] finding of no competition for the purpose of irreparable harm conflicts with the clear finding of competition for the purpose of awarding damages.
On December 19, 2012, in Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech....more