Aug
28
Evidence of Unexpected Results Key to Grant of Substitute Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceeding By Melissa R. Gibson, Akin Gump In Valeo North America, Inc. v. Schaeffler Tech. AG & CO. KG, after finding that all original claims of the patent were unpatentable during an inter partes review (IPR)...
read more →
Aug
25
Summaries of recent reported decisions of the Federal Circuit prepared by Irfan Lateef. District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...
read more →
Jul
15
Summaries of recent reported decisions of the Federal Circuit prepared by Irfan Lateef. District Court’s Remand to State Court Was Unreviewable In Preston v. Nagel, Appeal No. 2016-1524, the Federal Circuit rejected a proposed exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which bars review of an order remanding a case...
read more →
Apr
26
Summaries of recent reported decisions of the Federal Circuit prepared by Irfan Lateef. Federal Circuit Reverses Finding of Infringement Where Patentee Fails to Overcome Strong Presumption That Markush Groups Are Closed In Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1785, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district...
read more →
Feb
22
In patent litigation, the question of whether venue is proper often turns on whether a defendant resides in the forum. The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that an “action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant...
read more →
Oct
05
In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [En Banc Opinion], Appeal Nos. 2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994, the Federal Circuit vacated the panel decision, reinstated Apple’s $120 million jury verdict, and remanded the willfulness issue for consideration under the Halo standard. At the district court, a jury awarded Apple nearly $120...
read more →
Oct
04
In Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., Appeal No. 2015-1599, the claims reciting a method related to circuit design were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The asserted method claims recite translating a functional description of a logic circuit (e.g., software code) into a hardware component description of the logic...
read more →
Oct
04
In Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1881, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that a clear and unmistakable prosecution disclaimer had not occurred during prosecution of a parent application and also affirmed that the term “three-dimensional” was not indefinite. MIT sued Shire...
read more →
Oct
03
In Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1200, the Federal Circuit affirmed a narrow claim construction based on a “clear and unequivocal” disavowal of claim scope in the specification and prosecution history. Poly-America sued API for infringing its drawstring trash bag patent. The entry of judgment turned, in...
read more →
Oct
02
In FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1985, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that FairWarning’s patent claimed patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. FairWarning sued Iatric Systems asserting its patent titled “System and Method of Fraud and Misuse Detection.” Specifically, the patent...
read more →
« Previous Page — Next Page »
