News & Analysis as of

Apple Patents

PTAB Invalidation of Patents Following Jury Verdict of Infringement Does Not Necessarily Impact Willfulness Finding

In a recent decision, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of Texas rejected the argument that decisions of the United State Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) invalidating patents held infringed by a jury means that a...more

Apple and Samsung Are Headed Back to the Court Room

Following a lengthy and extensive litigation that began in 2011 that culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in December of 2016, smartphone industry titans Apple and Samsung will again find themselves in Federal District...more

Patent Owner Statements in IPR May Result in Prosecution Disclaimer

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing for the first time the issue of whether statements made during America Invents Act post-grant proceedings can trigger a prosecution disclaimer, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district...more

Interpretation of Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitations

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing claim construction issues in connection with “means-plus-function” limitations, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to uphold a non-infringement verdict based on a...more

PTAB Denies Apple's Motion to Withdraw IPR Petition and Motion for Joinder

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB denied Apple’s motion to withdraw both its IPR petition and concurrent motion for joinder to prevent Apple from circumventing potential estoppel ramifications in Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,...more

Statements Made in an IPR Can Lead to Prosecution Disclaimer

by Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit held that statements made by a patent owner in an IPR, whether before or after institution, can be considered during claim construction in district court litigation and relied upon to support a finding of...more

Patent Owner Statements During an IPR Disclaimed Claim Scope

In Aylus Networks, Inc., v. Apple, [2016-1599] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 44,412 on systems and methods for implementing digital home networks...more

Federal Circuit Expands Scope of Prosecution Disclaimer to IPR Proceedings

In its opinion in Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of prosecution disclaimer to statements made by a patent owner during Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The Court explained...more

Be Careful What You Wish For: Federal Circuit Says Statements Made During IPR Can Limit Scope of Patent

by K&L Gates LLP on

The Federal Circuit on May 11, 2017, addressing the question for the first time, held that statements made by a patent owner during inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) can...more

Federal Circuit Extends Prosecution Disclaimer to IPR Proceedings

by Morgan Lewis on

The Federal Circuit recently held as a matter of first impression that statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can be considered for claim construction and relied upon to support a finding of prosecution...more

Patent Owner’s Statements in IPR May Constitute a “Disclaimer” of Claim Scope in Litigation

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding, whether before or after an institution decision, can be...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more

Statements Made In IPR Preliminary Responses May Trigger Later Prosecution Disclaimer

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that a patent owner’s statements made in a preliminary statement during an AIA inter partes review (IPR) proceeding may create...more

Federal Circuit Holds That Statements Made In IPRs Can Lead To Prosecution Disclaimer

by Jones Day on

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) (“Federal Circuit Op.”), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Apple did not infringe Aylus’s patents. See Aylus Networks,...more

Semicolons Strongly Indicate Each Step is Separate and Distinct; Confuse Most Non-Patent Lawyers

In In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, [2016-1173] (May 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that §317(b) did not bar the reexamination and that the reexamined claims were invalid....more

In re Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Acting as Lexicographers Saves Patent from Being Found Invalid - In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the Court highlighted an old rule in that the inventors may act as their own lexicographers to create a claim term and...more

Obviousness Does Not Speak for Itself

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of evidence required for a sustainable obviousness determination, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of obviousness of the challenged...more

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands to PTAB Because of Insufficient Analysis of Obviousness in IPR

by Jones Day on

In a unanimous opinion issued on February 14, 2017, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination in Apple’s inter partes review against PersonalWeb and remanded for further...more

Federal Circuit Knocks Out Patents After CBM Challenge

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

Apple successfully invalidated three patents for failure to recite patent eligible subject matter. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 2015-1792, 2015-1793 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patents relate to synchronous communication systems...more

Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Apple filed a successful petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Personal Web Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310. In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) agreed with Apple's contention...more

Apple v. Samsung: The Parties Weigh in on Next Steps

On Tuesday, December 6, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its first opinion in a design patent case in more than 120 years. In the long-running smartphone saga between Apple and Samsung, the issue before the...more

New Lawsuits Challenge Qualcomm’s Allegedly Anticompetitive Patent Practices

by Perkins Coie on

The Federal Trade Commission filed suit last week in federal court against Qualcomm, Inc., following its investigation launched in September 2014. The FTC alleges that the semiconductor manufacturer illegally maintained a...more

FTC Sues Qualcomm for Using Anticompetitive Tactics to Maintain Chip Monopoly

Last week, the FTC filed a complaint against Qualcomm, a manufacturer of baseband processors, which are chips included in cell phones and other products with cellular connectivity that allow the devices to connect to cell...more

IP Cases to Watch in 2017

The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least...more

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments - January 2017

In this appeal arising from the N.D. Cal., the Federal Circuit is tasked with deciding whether Octane Fitness effectively overturned Shum v. Intel Corp. on the issue of awarding costs when there is more than one “prevailing...more

139 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.