Latest Publications

Share:

Hard to Stomach: Things You Say to Prosecute a Patent Can and Will Be Used Against You

AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD. Before Murphy, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Arguments and amendments made during prosecution of a parent...more

Federal Circuit Review | March 2025

Limits of Inherent Anticipation in Product-by-Process Claims - In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, Appeal No. 23-2054, the Federal Circuit held that inherency in product-by-process claims requires the prior art to inevitably...more

Argument Forfeited When Raised for the First Time Fourteen Months After an Appeal

ODYSSEY LOGISTICS & TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. STEWART - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stoll.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A patent applicant forfeited its Appointments Clause...more

An Obvious Solution to an Unknown Problem?

IMMUNOGEN, INC. v. STEWART - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Prost. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A solution to a problem can be obvious even when the problem itself was unknown in...more

Federal Circuit Review | February 2025

In HD Silicon Solutions LLC V. Microchip Technology Inc., Appeal No. 23-1397, the Federal Circuit held that  all but one patent claim were invalid as obvious because the claimed material, as properly construed, was disclosed...more

Federal Circuit Review | January 2025

In Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal No. 23-1354, the Federal Circuit held that under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the motivation to modify prior art does not need to be the same as...more

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Has Jurisdiction Over IPRs Challenging Expired Patents

Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents because the review of such patents...more

Federal Circuit Review | December 2024

Bound to Happen: Inherent Property Leaves No Question of Reasonable Expectation of Success - In Cytiva Bioprocess R&D Ab v. Jsr Corp., Appeal No. 23-2074, the Federal Circuit held that a claim limitation merely reciting an...more

Federal Circuit Review | November 2024

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. K.Mizra LLC, Appeal No. 22-2290, The Federal Circuit denied appellants’ unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal where appellants filed the motion after the court’s opinion and days...more

Federal Circuit Review | October 2024

Failure to Obtain Advice of a Third Party Is Not Evidence of Willfulness - In Provisur Technologies, Inc., v. Weber, Inc., Appeal No. 23-1438, the Federal Circuit held that patentees cannot use an accused infringer’s failure...more

Read the Fine Print: Federal Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Patent Infringement Claims Based on an Express License, Where Some...

Before Stark, Lourie, and Bryson. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Summary: A narrowly defined patent license may result in some activity falling within the scope of the patent...more

Federal Circuit Review - September 2024

Combining Abstract Ideas Does Not Make Them Less Abstract - In Broadband Itv, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., Appeal No. 23-1107, the Federal Circuit held that when assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, combining two...more

Federal Circuit Review | August 2024

Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101 - In Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. Appeal No. 22-2216, the Federal Circuit held that patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional...more

Are Literal Infringement and the Doctrine of Equivalents the Same Issue?

Before Prost, Taranto, and Chen.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Summary: Literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents are treated as the same...more

Federal Circuit Review | July 2024

In Natera, Inc v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1324 the Federal Circuit held that  preliminary injunction may be valid if a substantial question of invalidity was not raised, even if the asserted patent is...more

Estoppel Does Not Apply to Previously Issued Claims

Before Bryson, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Summary: Estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) only applies to obtaining new...more

Federal Circuit Review | June 2024

Reliably Determining Reasonable Royalty Rates from Lump Sum Licenses - In Ecofactor, Inc. V. Google LLC, Appeal No. 23-1101, The Federal Circuit held that license agreements containing a lump sum payment “based on” a royalty...more

Federal Circuit Review | May 2024

Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more

Federal Circuit Review - April 2024

Obviousness Analysis Does Not Consider Unclaimed Limitations - In Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Usa, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1258, the Federal Circuit held that district court erred by adding unclaimed...more

Obviousness Analysis Does Not Consider Unclaimed Limitations

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. Before Prost, Dyk, and Hughes.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: District court erred by adding...more

Federal Circuit Review | March 2024

Defining Indefiniteness: When Are Claim Limitations Contradictory? In Maxell, Ltd., v. Amperex Technology Limited, Appeal No. 23-1194, the Federal Circuit held that  two claim limitations are not contradictory if they...more

Federal Circuit Review | February 2024

The Outcome of the PTAB’s Analysis May Determine Whether the PTAB Engaged in Claim Construction - In Google LLC v. Ecofactor, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1750, the Federal Circuit held that the outcome of the PTAB’s analysis of...more

Consider the Relevant Technology Carefully Before Claiming Ranges in Patent Applications

RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. v. PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A - Before Chen, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more

Federal Circuit Instructs PTAB How to Apply Public Accessibility Standard

WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. - Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stark.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Copyright notices in product manuals, which prohibited their reproduction and...more

Federal Circuit Review | December 2023

December 2023 Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) - Intel Wrongly Denied Opportunity to Litigate License Defense that Could Unwind $2.1 Billion Judgment - In Vlsi Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Appeal No....more

116 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide