Midyear Banking Review
If I won my case, why do I need to worry about an appeal?
One of the characteristics of patent infringement litigation in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (holding that claim construction was a matter of law to be reviewed de...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s noninfringement decision, finding that the district court improperly construed the asserted claims as requiring a dual-fuel system....more
In the second appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the preamble term “three-dimensional spreadsheet” was found to be a limitation in the context of claims directed to organizing and presenting...more
As a non-precedential decision on claim construction, Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc., may not be relevant to any other case, but it caught my attention as an example of the perils of claim drafting....more
On May 8, 2017, in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc., 15-1739, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) claim constructions in a non-precedential decision....more
Addressing claim construction issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a claim construction limiting “communications path” to wired communications. Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless...more
Addressing issues of claim construction after a remand from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again reversed the district court’s judgment of infringement, finding that it was based on an...more
Addressing claim construction issues in the context of an inter partes review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB or Board) construction of the term “is...more
In early 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the standard of review for patent claim construction with its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (Teva I). Previously, the U.S. Court of...more
In considering a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees in view of the Supreme Court’s Octane Fitness standard for finding an “exceptional case” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (IP Update Vol. 17, No. 5), the U.S. Court of Appeals...more
Addressing issues of claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently reversed the decisions of two district courts, shedding some light on the impact of the Teva decision on its claim...more
In yet another post-Teva claim construction case (see discussion of Teva v. Sandoz, Shire Development v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. and TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph cases (this edition) the U.S....more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co. (Fed. Cir. 2015) serves as a reminder that courts may implicitly read an order into a patent’s method claim steps, even if the applicant did...more
Case Name: Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.) (Appeal from S.D. Fla., Middlebrooks, J.) - Drug...more
In its January 2015 decision, Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the ultimate construction of a patent claim term is a question of law, subject to de novo appellate review, but that the...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - CAFC: If (No Factual Findings), Then (No Deference) - Two days ago, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit in Shire v. Watson again affirmed its reversal of the...more
Applying the Supreme Court’s new “reasonable certainty” standard for patent definiteness in Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc. (2015) (Nautilus III), the Federal Circuit again held that Biosig’s patent for a heart...more
Case Name: Teva Pharms USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 10-13-854, 135 S. Ct. 831 (Mar. 20, 2012) (Breyer, J. delivered opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.,...more
The recent Supreme Court case of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. held that, although the ultimate issue of claim construction is a legal question subject to de novo review, underlying factual determinations...more
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: IS IT TIME TO RETHINK HOW YOU WILL ARGUE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION? The United States Supreme Court decided in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. that the Federal Circuit must review all...more
Addressing for the first time the issue of claim construction since the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Teva, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied a de novo standard of review, giving no deference...more
Two appeals following the Supreme Court’s modification of the standard of appellate review on claim construction in Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (IP Update,Vol. 18, No. 1) indicate that it is largely business as...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the standard of review for claim construction on appeal in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 12-854. The Court held “[w]hen reviewing a district...more
The Supreme Court recently decided a patent case involving a significant procedural issue. In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (1/20/15), the question before the Court was whether the Federal...more
More Deference to District Courts in Claim Construction - In TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. v. SANDOZ, INC., No. 13-854, the Supreme Court held that factual findings underpinning claim construction rulings are reviewed...more