News & Analysis as of

Noninfringement

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In a non-precedential decision issued in Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of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

Dubious Patent Trolls and a Crowdfunded Infringement Defense

We’ve spent time discussing the patent troll phenomenon in the past. Patent trolls are less pejoratively referred to as non-practicing entities, because they do not make or use the inventions covered by their patents. ...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

Amgen v. Hospira: Hospira Files a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement

by Goodwin on

Last week, Hospira filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement asserting that “all of Hospira’s accused erythropoietin drug substance batches are protected by the safe harbor provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)...more

In Case of First Impression, Federal Circuit Rules that a Patent Owner’s Statements in an IPR Proceeding Can Create Prosecution...

by BakerHostetler on

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit ruled that a patent owner’s statements during an inter partes review (IPR), even if before an institution decision, can...more

Pre-Sale Use of Data Storage Trademark Not Enough to Secure Priority Rights

A Massachusetts federal court recently found multiple early uses of a sought-after trademark insufficient to confer priority of rights. The dispute concerned two technology companies, Nexsan and EMC, each seeking to use the...more

ALJ Finds ITC Remedial Orders Unenforceable

by Jones Day on

We previously wrote about the uphill battle Respondent Eko Brands faced in an enforcement proceeding after it defaulted in the underlying investigation. The ALJ found during the proceedings that res judicata barred its...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

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - April 2017

by WilmerHale on

Affirming judgment of noninfringement of one patent and reversing judgment of infringement of another patent. All asserted claims required a particular process step, construed as defined by one example in the specification,...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

Burden Shifted to Accused Infringer to Show Accused Product Not Made by Patented Process

A judge has ordered that an alleged infringer’s product must be presumed to have been made using a patented process, thereby shifting the burden of proof on the issue of infringement from the patent holder to the alleged...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

8th Circuit Trademark Year in Review 2016

I recently presented a CLE at the Bar Association of Metropolitan Saint Louis that covered many of the most important trademark cases from 2016 that were decided in the 8th Circuit. Here are some of the key teachings from...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

Briefing Complete in Appeal in Amgen v. Apotex

by Goodwin on

The parties in Amgen v. Apotex have completed briefing in Amgen’s appeal to the Federal Circuit from the district court’s judgment of noninfringment. As we have previously reported, in September 2016 the District Court for...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

Judge Swain Finds a “Book” by Any Other Cover is Still Not a “Camera”

Pro se Plaintiff Chikezie Ottah (“Plaintiff”) sued fifteen automobile companies for patent infringement alleging that defendants’ car mounted cameras infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 (“the ’840 patent”) entitled “Book...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

Janssen v. Celltrion: Court Denies Celltrion’s Summary Judgment Motion, Orders Further Briefing as to Hospira

by Goodwin on

This morning, in the district court action in Janssen v. Celltrion, Judge Wolf issued an oral order denying the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,598,083 (“the ’083...more

Judge Cote Holds Attorneys Liable for Trying to Keep a “Baseless” Case in E.D. Tex. that Sought Nuisance Payments from Numerous...

On December 8, 2016, District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendants Gust, Inc.’s (hereinafter, “Gust”) motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against plaintiff AlphaCap...more

127 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.