News & Analysis as of

CAFC Patent Infringement

A&O Shearman

Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc.

A&O Shearman on

In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final...more

Irwin IP LLP

Standing in Limbo: What Platinum Optics v. Viavi Tells Us About IPR Appeals 

Irwin IP LLP on

Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., 2024 WL 3836107 (Fed. Cir. 2024) - On August 24, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dismissed an appeal for lack of standing after a...more

Baker Donelson

A Baker's Dozen of Patent Law Developments for 2024

Baker Donelson on

The world of intellectual property law is always changing, and it can be difficult to keep up. Here are 13 developments in patent law so far in 2024 to help you stay in the know....more

Quarles & Brady LLP

R.I.P. Mr. Rosen: Federal Circuit Upends Longstanding Design Patent Obviousness Test

Quarles & Brady LLP on

Upending decades of continuity in the world of design patents, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), sitting en banc in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, overturned the...more

Haug Partners LLP

STUDying Investments Patent-by-Patent: Zircon, Corp. v. International Trade Commission

Haug Partners LLP on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued its most recent precedential decision on satisfying the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement at the International Trade Commission in Zircon...more

BakerHostetler

Federal Circuit Addresses Personal Jurisdiction and Amazon’s Patent Dispute Procedure: What to Know Going Forward

BakerHostetler on

On May 2, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential opinion in SnapRays, d/b/a SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group, discussing personal jurisdiction and – for the first time –...more

Quarles & Brady LLP

Design Patent Obviousness Inquiry Is Up for Review at the CAFC

Quarles & Brady LLP on

As we have previously written about, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has granted a petition for an en banc rehearing of LKQ Corp. et al v. GM Global Technology to rule on the...more

Jones Day

Another Bite? CAFC Allows Expansion of Arguments in Reply

Jones Day on

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the Board when it allowed Apple to expand its analogous art contention in its IPR reply, finding that the Board’s decision did not run afoul of the...more

Quarles & Brady LLP

Uncertainty Ahead if Design Patent Obviousness Test is Abrogated by en banc CAFC

Quarles & Brady LLP on

In a surprising move, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) has granted a petition for rehearing en banc on the issue of whether the test for determining obviousness of design patents has been overruled by the...more

Irwin IP LLP

Olé!  CAFC Rules Patent Bullfight Must Go On 

Irwin IP LLP on

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently revived a patent infringement suit dismissed in the Western District of Wisconsin brought by Inguran, LLC (“Inguran”) against ABS Global, Inc. (“ABS”). The CAFC...more

Irwin IP LLP

CAFC Holds Priority Favors True Trailblazers, Not Maze-Like Paths Through a Forest of Prior Applications: Regents of the...

Irwin IP LLP on

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently upheld a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found some claims of U.S. Patent 8,815,830 (“the ’830 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated....more

Irwin IP LLP

String ‘Em Up: Light Patentee OK to Notify Others of Patent Suit: Lite-Netics, LLC, v. Nu Tsai Cap. LLC, d/b/a Holiday Bright...

Irwin IP LLP on

Sticks and stones may break your bones, but don’t complain to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) if a patentee calls you an infringer, claims you copied, or threatens to sue your customers.  Holding speech...more

Irwin IP LLP

No Handling Necessary: Industry Demo Was A Public Use: Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 2023 WL 1999900 (Fed. Cir. Feb....

Irwin IP LLP on

Be careful of showing your claimed inventions at tradeshows.  On February 15, 2023, the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a summary judgment ruling that, by merely showcasing an embodying device at an industry event (the...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Judge Alsup Certifies Two Hot Button Issues on Standard for Pleading Willful Infringement for Interlocutory Appeal to the CAFC

On March 16, 2022, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California certified two of the hot button issues splitting district courts on the standard for pleading willful infringement (see order),...more

Jones Day

CAFC Holds Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot be the Basis of an IPR Ground

Jones Day on

Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more

Jones Day

Ho, Ho, No: CAFC Delivers Reversal, Vacatur, and Remand in Christmas Tree Row

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit recently issued another decision in a longstanding dispute between Willis Electric Co. and Polygroup Ltd. involving two patents owned by Willis (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,454,186 and 8,454,187) directed to...more

Proskauer - Life Sciences

A Reminder of Doctrine of Equivalents in Biotechnology: Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH v. International Trade Commission

Doctrine of equivalents (DOE) can be applied as a mechanism to hold a party liable for patent infringement even if the product or process does not literally infringe a patent claim, if the difference is “insubstantial”....more

Hogan Lovells

Federal Circuit affirms GSK labeling carve-out ruling in favor of innovator

Hogan Lovells on

Earlier this month, in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed (2-1) upon rehearing its October 2020 decision that a labeling...more

WilmerHale

CAFC Patent Cases - April 2021

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - ..WI-LAN INC. v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION [OPINION]  (2020-1041, April 6, 2021) (DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL) - Dyk, J.  Affirming related district court judgments holding...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

ABS Global v. Cytonome/St, LLC: Mootness and Preserving the Argument for Vacatur

In 2017, Cytonome filed suit in the Western District of Wisconsin (“the District Court”), accusing ABS of infringing six of its patents, including US Patent No. 8,529,161 (“the ’161 patent”). Subsequently, in October 2017,...more

WilmerHale

CAFC Patent Cases - January 2021

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - SIMIO, LLC v. FLEXSIM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS [OPINION] (2020-1171, 12/29/20) (Prost, Clevenger, Stoll) - Prost, J. Affirming dismissal because claims were ineligible under § 101....more

Hogan Lovells

Labeling carve-out does not shield generic drug makers from induced infringement claims, CAFC rules

Hogan Lovells on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently decided (2-1) in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. that a labeling carve-out by a generic drug sponsor did not preclude a finding of...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

CBM Review: A Postmortem

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Covered business method (CBM) review is scheduled to end on September 15 this year. Part of the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act, CBM review was envisioned as a transitional tool for accused infringers to challenge weak...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

INSIGHT: Biogen Decision Shows Need for Clinical, Legal Collaboration

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Biogen International GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the scope of a patent term restoration under 35 U.S.C. §156 only includes the active...more

International Lawyers Network

Can Design Patents Be Limiting in Enforcement?

Suppose that you have an invention disclosure for a design of an article that you want to protect?  When you review the invention disclosure, you notice that the design is ornamental, for example a pattern, on an article such...more

42 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide