A recent district court decision in Sonos v. Google has set forth a novel application of the prosecution laches doctrine to a patent with a post-1995 priority date. Sonos Inc. v. Google LLC, 20-06754 WHA, 2023 WL 6542320...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
Although last week saw just four Federal Circuit opinions, they were all precedential ones and covered a range of interesting issues. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective...more
In This Issue - The Evolving Relationship Between Brands and Athletes: What Comes Next - The dominance of social media allows individuals, including athletes and other influencers, to build their personal brand within the...more
The Federal Circuit recently vacated a District Court decision by Federal Circuit Judge Dyk, sitting by designation, based on erroneous claim construction in Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc...more
In Linksmart Wireless Tech., LLC v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK (D. Nev. May 8, 2020) the Court addressed disputed claim terms in U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 (the “’459 Patent”), Linksmart had...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more
A few weeks ago, we posted an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (see Disclaimer Before Institution May Not Avoid Adverse Judgment...more
Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2016-1249 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2018) - In Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) obviousness determination following...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Bryson, and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Prosecution disclaimer occurred when an applicant explained why claims were amended and the Examiner...more
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., slip op. 2017-1239, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision to enter an adverse judgment following Patent Owner’s disclaimer of all claims challenged in an inter...more
The PTAB has determined that a patent owner may not moot a CBM proceeding by disclaiming claims post-institution. Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, CBM2016-00095, Paper 39 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2018)....more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Dyk, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The PTAB may enter an adverse judgment against a patent owner where, before issuing an institution...more
In Sanofi v. Watson Labs., the Circuit affirms a determination of induced infringement of one patent and direct infringement of another, thus assuring Sanofi another 12 years of exclusivity as to its Multaq® atrial...more
Inter Partes Reexamination Estoppel Attaches On Claim-by-Claim Basis for New Requests and Pending Proceedings - In In re Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2016-1092, 2016-1172, the Federal Circuit held that the...more
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
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
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
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
On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and...more