Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. FRESHUB, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. [OPINION] (2022-1391, 2/26/2024) (Reyna, Taranto, and Chen) - Taranto, J. The Court affirmed the District Court’s decision 1)...more
The Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up for October 2023 covers three decisions addressing the scope of the work-product and attorney-client privileges, limits on the use of a defendant’s use of its own patents during...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted a motion in limine to preclude testimony from corporate executives about their “business understanding” regarding infringement because the defendant previously...more
On May 11, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court of Delaware’s judgment that patents belonging to Pacific Biosciences of California (“PacBio”) were invalid for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. A...more
TECSEC, INC., v. ADOBE INC. Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Summary: Even if it would be objectively reasonable to view a defendant’s conduct as...more
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 17-275-LPS-CJB (D.Del. February 27, 2020), the Court...more
In a recently issued order, ALJ Lord granted-in-part and denied-in-part Respondents’ motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of Complainants’ expert. Certain Radio Frequency Microneedle Dermatological Treatment Devices...more
The Southern District of New York has granted a motion in limine precluding evidence of Defendant’s failed inter partes review (IPR) petition. The parties to the lawsuit are in the business of manufacturing and selling...more
In Solutran, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp & Elavon, Inc., No. 13:cv-02637, 2018 WL 1276999 (D. Minn. Mar. 12, 2018), the court denied the plaintiff’s Motion in Limine and held that CBM estoppel does not apply to related applications...more
In an opinion dated October 12, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted a motion in limine to exclude evidence that a challenged patent had survived twenty post-issuance proceedings,...more
We reported earlier this week that the district court in Amgen v. Hospira denied Hospira’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of its proposed biosimilar of Epogen®/Procrit® (epoetin alfa) and granted-in-part and...more
On occasion, the allegations in a patent-based a section 337 investigation will apply the asserted patent(s) against an accused product that, by the time the investigation concludes, has been discontinued. This is...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Federal Circuit Grants Mandamus Disallowing Use of U.S. Discovery in Foreign Proceedings - The Federal Circuit has granted mandamus vacating a New Jersey district court’s order that allowed...more
DISTRICT COURT CASES - Eastern District of Virginia Grants Summary Judgment of Noninfringement to Adobe - On May 7, 2015, Judge Brinkema of the United States district court for the Eastern District of Virginia...more
SUPREME COURT CASES - U.S. Supreme Court Remands Case to Federal Circuit to Review Patent Under Teva - On April 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded a case back to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal...more
1. Defendant may not refer to plaintiff as a “patent troll” or reference “woodshedding.” It may however present evidence that plaintiff does not practice the patents-in-suit since that is relevant to damages....more