News & Analysis as of

Noninfringement Appeals

Federal Circuit recognizes a broad scope of attribution under the doctrine of divided infringement

by Dentons on

In a recent decision, Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, __ F.3d __, Appeal Nos. 2016-2386, 2016-2387, 2016-2714, 2017-1025, Slip Op. at 20 (Dec. 19, 2017), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed its...more

Whether Third Party Acts are Attributable to Infringer in a Divided Infringement Situation is Question of Fact

In Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, [2016-2386, 2016-2387, 2016-2714, 2017-1025] (December 19, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated summary judgment of non-infringement, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether...more

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court in Amgen v. Apotex

by Goodwin on

As we previously reported, Amgen appealed the Southern District of Florida’s judgment of non-infringement in favor of Apotex in litigation regarding Apotex’s proposed filgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars. Today the...more

Hypothetical Claim in Doctrine of Equivalents Analysis Cannot Narrow Claim Scope

In Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp., [2016-1275, 2016-1575] (September 29, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Jang’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), its vacatur of the jury...more

Federal Circuit Review - June 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

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

Court Questions Applicability of Function Way Result Test In Chemical Cases

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., the Federal Circuit reviewed a preliminary injunction based in part on a finding of likelihood of success in establishing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents....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

CAFC Finds ANDA Infringement Despite Differences Between FDA Labeling And Claim Language

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a non-precedential decision issued in Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Breckenridge, and...more

Failure to Provide an Unconditional Covenant Not to Sue Kept Case and Controversy Alive

In ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp., [2016-1357] (May 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment invalidating claims 24 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. RE44153....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

Issue Preclusion: Patent Owner Does Not Get a Do Over to Assert the Claims Against Similar Products

In Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co., [2016-1982] (April 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,428,933. In prior litigation in which Phil-Insul asserted the...more

Angiomax Patents Limited To Example

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc., the Federal Circuit construed composition claims of two Angiomax patents as requiring the recited “batches” to be made by a specific “efficient mixing” process illustrated in one of the...more

Don’t Exalt Slogans over Real Meaning; Find the Claim Construction that Naturally Aligns with the Specification and Prosecution...

In The Medicines Company v. Mylan, Inc., [2015-1113, 2015-1151, 2015-1181] (April 6, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,598,343, and reversed a bench trial...more

Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases

In SCA v. First Quality Baby Products, the Supreme Court holds that laches should not be available as a defense in patent cases, refusing to concur with the Circuit’s en banc holding that the Patent Act’s 6-year limitation on...more

Troll Gets Rolled Because Its Disclaimer Statements Were Undersold

In MPHJ Tech v. Ricoh Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed a conclusion of anticipation and obviousness from an Inter Partes Review involving US 8,488,173 (‘173). The content of the art was not really in dispute. Rather, the...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - February 2017

by WilmerHale on

MPHJ Technology Investments v. Ricoh Americas Corporation (No. 2016-1243, 2/13/17) (Newman, Lourie, O'Malley) - Newman, J. Affirming PTAB decision in IPR that claims directed to document managing system and process were...more

Strong Presumption that Markush Claim Elements are Closed to Additional Elements

In Shire Development. LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., [2016-1785] (February 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of infringement because the accused product did not meet the Markush claim element, and...more

RX IP Update - January 2017

by Smart & Biggar on

Apotex’s Infringement of AstraZeneca’s Omeprazole Formulation Patent Upheld - As previously reported, the Federal Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision released on January 12, 2017 (2017 FCA 9), has affirmed the...more

Federal Circuit Review | August 2016

by Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Holds That Using A Contract Manufacturer Does Not Trigger An On-Sale Bar - In The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, -1504, the Federal Circuit, en banc, held that the patentee’s deal...more

No Due Process Violation Where Judgment Entered on Patents Not Asserted at Trial

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

A recent case reminds litigators to be diligent in protecting their clients’ due-process rights when narrowing a case for trial or risk forfeiting the right to trial altogether. In Nuance Communications v. ABBYY USA Software...more

Avid Technology, Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) - Lesson for Defendant-Appellee's: Provide Responsive Arguments on Appeal

On January 29, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an Opinion in Avid Technology, Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc. in which the judgment of the District Court was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial on infringement. Avid...more

Federal Circuit Review | November 2015

by Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Declines to Reverse Invalidity, Noninfringement Holdings - In Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Appeal No. 2014-1407, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary...more

Enablement: Multiple Measurement Methods Can Lead to the Same Result - Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issues of indefiniteness and non-infringement for both utility and design patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment...more

Federal Circuit En Banc Decision in Williamson v. Citrix Overrules Long Line of Precedent Regarding Functional Claiming and § 112,...

by Ropes & Gray LLP on

On June 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, overruling en banc a long line of precedent regarding functional claiming and affirming a District Court decision finding asserted...more

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 2 | Issue 12 December 2012

by Knobbe Martens on

In This Issue: • Indexing Not Required for Online Prior Art Publication • Claim Indefinite for Not Disclosing Any Structure • Aluminum Not Inherently Disclosed - Excerpt from Claim Indexing Not Required...more

25 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1
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.