OCIPLA OCIPLA OCIPLA
  • Home
  • About
    • About OCIPLA
    • Committees
    • Past Presidents
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • News
  • Membership
  • Contact
OCIPLA OCIPLA
  • Home
  • About
    • About OCIPLA
    • Committees
    • Past Presidents
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • News
  • Membership
  • Contact
Oct 05

The Federal Circuit May Not Review An Unappealed Claim Construction

  • October 5, 2016
  • staff
  • Federal Circuit Summary, Patent

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 million for Samsung’s infringement of three patents.  The district court denied Samsung’s JMOL motions.  The original panel reversed the denials of JMOL.  Apple petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel relied on extra-record evidence and exceeded their appellate function.  The Federal Circuit granted the petition and issued its en banc opinion without additional briefing or argument from the parties.

Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit vacated the portions of the panel decision reversing the three JMOL denials.  The Court’s purpose in granting Apple’s rehearing petition was “to affirm our understanding of the appellate function as limited to deciding the issues raised on appeal by the parties” while applying deference to factual findings.  The panel had impermissibly relied on non-record sources to modify an unappealed claim construction.  The record before the jury also contained substantial evidence to support its factual findings of non-obviousness under that construction.  The Court also vacated the district court’s grant of JMOL of no willful infringement, and remanded for consideration under Halo.

Each of the three original panelists individually dissented.  The dissenters argued that the majority raised the bar for proving obviousness and misapplied and weakened the substantial-evidence standard.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • E-Mail

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

  • Federal Circuit Summaries (1 of 12)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (2 of 12)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (3 of 12)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (4 of 12)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (5 of 12)

Archives

  • May 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • March 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • June 2020
  • April 2020
  • February 2020
  • September 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • February 2017
  • October 2016

Categories

  • Amicus Briefs
  • Copyright
  • Education and Training
  • Employment
  • Federal Circuit Summary
  • News
  • Non-Obviousness
  • Patent
  • Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • Trade secret
  • Trademark
  • Uncategorized


Serving the Orange County Intellectual Property law community since 1983.

Orange County Intellectual Property Law Association
P.O. Box 7632
Newport Beach, CA 92658

About
Membership
Bylaws
Contact

© 2022 OCIPLA | All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web