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
8/6/2024
/ Background Checks ,
Claim Construction ,
Estoppel ,
Ex Parte ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Limited Liability Company (LLC) ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Prior Art ,
Public Disclosure ,
Public Interest ,
USPTO
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
6/7/2024
/ Damages ,
Design Patent ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Licensing Rules ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patentability Search ,
Patents ,
Printed Matter Doctrine ,
Prior Art ,
Standing ,
Summary Judgment
Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction -
In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more
12/5/2023
/ Article III ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Life Sciences ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Purdue Pharma ,
Standing
Substantial Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc, Appeal No. 22-1335, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s finding on obviousness is supported by substantial evidence that a skilled...more
IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response -
In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
9/20/2023
/ Claim Construction ,
Ex Parte ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
7/20/2023
/ Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Medical Devices ,
Medtronic ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
Who Bears the Burden of Proof for IPR Estoppel?
In Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Appeal No. 21-2296, the Federal Circuit held that the patentee has the burden of proving that invalidity grounds not raised in a...more
Arthrex Again? Federal Circuit Says, “No More!” -
In Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 20-1565, the Federal Circuit held that, while the Appointments Clause requires that the USPTO Director have the power to...more
Restrictive Definitions Incorporated by Reference Do Not Necessarily Control for Later Patents in the Same Family -
In Finjan LLC v. Eset, LLC, Appeal No. 21-2093, the Federal Circuit held that specific definitions...more
In LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision Inc., Appeal No. 21-2037, the Federal Circuit held that, where a reference contains an “obvious” error in a disclosure, even one not immediately apparent from the face of the disclosure,...more
Somebody’s Wrong: PTAB Must Resolve Conflicting Factual Testimony During IPR -
In Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., Appeal No. 21-1179, the Federal Circuit held that, for purposes of determining whether a reference was...more
6/20/2022
/ Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Claim Construction ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Federal Vacancies Reform Act ,
Google ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious -
In Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation, Appeal No. 21-1561, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
4/5/2022
/ Anticipation ,
Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Sua Sponte ,
Substitute Claims
Ordered To Agree: Binding Settlement Agreement Provision Found Despite Absence of Singular, Executed Agreement -
In Plasmacam, Inc. v. Cncelectronics, LLC Appeal No. 21-1689, the Federal Circuit held that an agreement on...more
3/22/2022
/ Appeals ,
Binding Agreements ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Contract Terms ,
Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Prior Art ,
Settlement Agreements
Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive -
In Modernatx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Appeal No. 20-2329, the Federal Circuit held that a presumption of obviousness based on...more
1/11/2022
/ AstraZeneca ,
Generic Drugs ,
Instrinsic Evidence ,
Intel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Moderna Inc. ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm
Venue and Pleading Infringement in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Turn on Location and Identity of ANDA Filer -
In Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. et al., Appeal No. 21-1154, the Federal Circuit held that in Hatch-Waxman...more
12/9/2021
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Apple ,
Article III ,
Biogen Idec ,
Dr. Reddy’s Labs. ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Qualcomm ,
Standing ,
Written Descriptions
No Assembly, No Infringement – Federal Circuit Declines to Expand the “Final Assembler” Theory of Direct Infringement
In Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Appeal No. 20-1700 the Federal Circuit held that...more
11/9/2021
/ Abstract Ideas ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Direct Infringement ,
Gaming ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Software
It’s No Secret That a Related Company’s Physical Presence in a Jurisdiction May Not Be Enough For Proper Venue -
In Andra Group, LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, Appeal No. 20-2009, The Federal Circuit held that an...more
9/20/2021
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Eli Lilly ,
Improper Venue ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jurisdiction ,
Nexus ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Physical Presence Test ,
Preamble ,
Principal Place of Business ,
Retailers ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals ,
Victoria Secret
District Court’s Pleading Standard Returns an Error Code in PS4 Battle -
In Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation Of America, Appeal No. 20-2218, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s view that infringement...more
8/18/2021
/ Amended Complaints ,
Claim Construction ,
Failure To State A Claim ,
Gaming ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pleading Standards ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm ,
Sony ,
Sua Sponte
Copying From a Copyrighted Computer Program May Be Fair Use to the Extent Needed to Promote Adoption of the Use of Accrued Talents in Creating a New Software Platform -
In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Appeal No....more
5/28/2021
/ Admissible Evidence ,
Copyright ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Fair Use ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Oracle v Google ,
Patent Royalties ,
Prior Art ,
SCOTUS ,
Software Developers ,
Source Code ,
Transformative Use
No Shortcuts to the “Reasonable Pertinence” Analysis in the Analogous Art Inquiry -
In Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, Appeal No. 20-1104, the Federal Circuit determination as to whether a reference is...more
12/23/2020
/ Analogous Art ,
Claim Construction ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
POSITA ,
Prior Art ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP
Expiration of a Patent Does Not Always Trigger Application of Phillips Standard on IPR Appeal -
In Immunex Corporation v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Appeal No. 19-1749, the Federal Circuit held that expiration of a patent...more
11/13/2020
/ Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
First-to-File ,
Induced Infringement ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Phillips Standard ,
Prior Art
Joining an IPR Triggers IPR Estoppel Only for Instituted Grounds -
In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company , Appeal No. 18-2338, the Federal Circuit held that a party...more
10/21/2020
/ 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ,
Anticipation ,
Claim Limitations ,
Contributory Infringement ,
Estoppel ,
Hewlett-Packard ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judgment As A Matter Of Law ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art
Non-Infringement Need Not Be “Actually Litigated” To Shield Accused Products From Infringement Liability In Subsequent Actions -
In In Re Personal Web Technologies LLC, Appeal No. 19-1918, the Federal Circuit ruled that the...more
8/4/2020
/ Appeals ,
Claim Limitations ,
Claim Preclusion ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Dismissal With Prejudice ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Kessler Doctrine ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Preamble ,
Prior Art
IPR Petitioners May Not Raise Appointments Clause Challenges Under Arthrex -
In CIENA CORPORATION v. OYSTER OPTICS, LLC, Appeal No. 19-2117, affirmatively petitioning for IPR waived the petitioner’s Appointments Clause...more
7/1/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Clear and Convincing Evidence ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
Secret Third-Party Processes May Not Trigger Pre-AIA § 102 Public Knowledge or Use Bars -
In Basf Corporation v. SNF Holding Company, Appeal No. 19-1243, the Federal Circuit ruled that a third party’s sale of products...more