Latest Posts › Patent Litigation

Share:

Federal Circuit Clarifies Test for Exception to Increasingly Rare Interference Proceedings

Speck v. Bates, No. 2023-1147 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024) addressed two issues, (1) whether courts should apply a one-way test or a two-way test to determine if pre-critical claims materially differ from post-critical claims,...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requisite Analysis for Unclean Hands, Inequitable Conduct, Summary Judgement Determinations of...

Luv N’ Care, Ltd. and Nouri E. Hakim v. Lindsey Laurain and Eazy-PZ, LLC, Nos. 2022-1905, 2022-1970 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2024) addressed several issues, including: (1) what evidence of litigation misconduct may support a...more

Federal Circuit Rules on Inventor-as-Lexicographer Definitions and the Proper Scope of Reply and Sur-Reply Briefing Following...

ParkerVision, Inc., v. Katherin K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Director No. 2022-1548, (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2023) primarily involved three topics: (1) the type of language in a patent specification...more

Federal Circuit Rules on Written Description Requirement and Prior Art Statements Supporting a Motivation to Combine

RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Phillip Morris Products S.A., No. 2022-1862 (Fed. Cir. February 9, 2024) addressed two issues: (1) when the written description requirement is met in the context of a claimed range that is...more

Federal Circuit Weighs in on Relevance of Primary Reference’s Intended Purpose to a POSITA’s Motivation to Combine

In Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Vascular, Inc., v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L., the case addresses the weight the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should give to the intended purpose of a primary reference when evaluating...more

Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. Nos. 2022-1532, 2022-1533, (Fed. Cir. August 7, 2023)

This case addresses the ability of a petitioner in an IPR to present new evidence in a reply brief, particularly where the patent owner proposes a new claim construction in its patent owner response....more

Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Chilisin America Ltd. Nos. 2022-1873, (Fed. Cir. October 16, 2023)

This case is primarily about the Daubert standard as applied to expert testimony on damages. The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California’s admission of expert testimony on damages, which relied on...more

UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. No. 2021-1924, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)

This case addresses the legal framework for determining whether prior art anticipates a claimed range. The appropriate legal framework applies a different test depending on whether the prior art discloses a point within the...more

9 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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