MUNCHKIN, INC. V. LUV N’ CARE LTD -
Before Dyk, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Central District of California.
Summary: when a litigant seeks fees for an exceptional case based on issues that were not fully...more
6/10/2020
/ 35 U.S.C. § 285 ,
Abuse of Discretion ,
Amended Complaints ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Dismissal With Prejudice ,
Exceptional Case ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Trade Dress ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
Unfair Competition
KAKEN PHARMCEUTICAL CO., LTD., BAUSCH HEALTH COMPLAINTS INC., V. ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADE MARK OFFICE -
Judges: Newman,...more
PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATION, LLC v. APPLE INC -
Before Reyna, Taranto and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Prosecution history evidence need not rise to the level of disclaimer to...more
CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER -
Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking...more
Before: O'Malley, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: A parent patent specification of a continuation-in-part child patent constitutes intrinsic evidence...more
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Prost, Schall, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously leaves no room for assignor estoppel to apply in...more
11/13/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) ,
Appeals ,
Assignor Estoppel ,
Claim Construction ,
Cross-Appeals ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Reaffirmation ,
Remand ,
Reversal
The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the PTAB’s final written decisions on Wasica’s tire pressure monitoring patents in Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., No. 2015-2078 (Fed. Cir....more