Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Patent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patent. Show all posts
Federal Circuit: MEDICINES COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC.
Patents, UCC, En Banc
For purposes of Patent law, a product is considered to be onsale when the parties make a sale or offer for sale under the UCC. Title to the embodiments or rights to the manufacturing must change hands -- stockpiling, contract for manufacturing, and other transactions of commercial benefit do not necessarily qualify.
MEDICINES COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC.
Federal Circuit: Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc.
Patent, Injunctions
Statutory injunction for biosimilar product marketing conflict upheld.
Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc.
Federal Circuit: BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC
Patent
(Which, we say again, we really don't know all that well. Rely on nothing on this website.)
Although each element of the process may be individually untenable, an ordered combination of claim limitations, considered holistically, might state a claim to be considered a single practical, particular application of the idea.
C in J: Bifurcation of eligibility/patentability is problematic.
BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC
Federal Circuit: ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN LP
Patent, Dissent from denial of en banc
(Reminder: We don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent. Entertainment purposes only, as always.)
Using the merits panel to screen patent challenges is contrary to statute, and risks prejudgement.
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN LP [ORDER RE EN BANC PETITION]]
(Reminder: We don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent. Entertainment purposes only, as always.)
Using the merits panel to screen patent challenges is contrary to statute, and risks prejudgement.
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN LP [ORDER RE EN BANC PETITION]]
Federal Circuit: Immersion Corporation v. HTC Corporation
Patents, (FRCP)
Given longstanding agency practice, where the filing of a continuation application and the patenting of the device occur on the same day, the former is construed to precede the latter.
Immersion Corporation v. HTC Corporation
Given longstanding agency practice, where the filing of a continuation application and the patenting of the device occur on the same day, the former is construed to precede the latter.
Immersion Corporation v. HTC Corporation
Federal Circuit: TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIV. v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION
Patent
(Which, again, is among the many areas of the law in which we are relatively clueless.)
Although there is a heavy presumption in favor of common meanings in patent language, a claimant utilizing another interpretation does not have to explicitly redefine the word or disavow the common meaning.
Term is specific, not general.
Academic paper by inventor describing an invention not in controversy cannot be used to determine construction of claim.
Dependent claims are presumed to be narrower than the independent claims from which they derive.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1146.Opinion.1-29-2016.1.PDF
(Which, again, is among the many areas of the law in which we are relatively clueless.)
Although there is a heavy presumption in favor of common meanings in patent language, a claimant utilizing another interpretation does not have to explicitly redefine the word or disavow the common meaning.
Term is specific, not general.
Academic paper by inventor describing an invention not in controversy cannot be used to determine construction of claim.
Dependent claims are presumed to be narrower than the independent claims from which they derive.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1146.Opinion.1-29-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. HARMONIC, INC.
Patent
Claim construction drawn from patent prosecution history and given as part of jury charge was not a clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope.
Or something like that.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1246.Opinion.1-27-2016.1.PDF
Claim construction drawn from patent prosecution history and given as part of jury charge was not a clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope.
Or something like that.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1246.Opinion.1-27-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: AKZO NOBEL COATINGS, INC. v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
Patent
Correct construction of "collection" as place where things accumulate, no literal or equivalent infringement.
Decision not rewritten to match law.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1331.Opinion.1-27-2016.1.PDF
Correct construction of "collection" as place where things accumulate, no literal or equivalent infringement.
Decision not rewritten to match law.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1331.Opinion.1-27-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Pfizer v. Lee
Patent, Procedure
Claim not waived, as it was referenced in briefs and at argument below.
The time that should have been added to the end of the patent was appropriately tolled during the interval between the notice of insufficiency and the revised notice of insufficiency, as the initial notice put the petitioner on notice of the shortcomings in the claim.
Dissent: A response to an incomplete notice might have itself been incomplete.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1265.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF
Claim not waived, as it was referenced in briefs and at argument below.
The time that should have been added to the end of the patent was appropriately tolled during the interval between the notice of insufficiency and the revised notice of insufficiency, as the initial notice put the petitioner on notice of the shortcomings in the claim.
Dissent: A response to an incomplete notice might have itself been incomplete.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1265.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Lumen View Technollgy v. FindTheBest.com
Patent, Fees
No abuse of discretion in award of fees, given ill-supported allegations of infringement.
While deterrence is to be considered in whether to award fees, it is not a permissible basis for adjusting the lodestar award.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1275.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF
No abuse of discretion in award of fees, given ill-supported allegations of infringement.
While deterrence is to be considered in whether to award fees, it is not a permissible basis for adjusting the lodestar award.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1275.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services
Patent, FRCP
Sufficient cause to overwhelm presumption of non-diligence when an element of claim dropped in initial proceedings is revived in final proceedings, given intervening holding from S.Ct.
Consideration of cause does not necessitate inquiry into prejudice.
Claims not patent-eligible, as they are directed at abstract ideas without an inventive concept.
Limited consideration of expert depositions permissible in summary judgment.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1415.Opinion.1-15-2016.1.PDF
Sufficient cause to overwhelm presumption of non-diligence when an element of claim dropped in initial proceedings is revived in final proceedings, given intervening holding from S.Ct.
Consideration of cause does not necessitate inquiry into prejudice.
Claims not patent-eligible, as they are directed at abstract ideas without an inventive concept.
Limited consideration of expert depositions permissible in summary judgment.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1415.Opinion.1-15-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc. v. Covidien LP
Patent, Due Process
Absent claims of extrajudicial influence, no Due Process harm in the initial and final review being performed by the same panel.
Statute does not bar.
Review correctly identified innovation as obvious, as infringing prior art that incorporated the innovation was primarily marketed under other aspects.
Dissent: As statute assigns one level of adjudication to the Director and one to the Board, there must be separate panels.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent Law. Just trying for comprehensive access to slips.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1771.Opinion.1-8-2016.1.PDF
Absent claims of extrajudicial influence, no Due Process harm in the initial and final review being performed by the same panel.
Statute does not bar.
Review correctly identified innovation as obvious, as infringing prior art that incorporated the innovation was primarily marketed under other aspects.
Dissent: As statute assigns one level of adjudication to the Director and one to the Board, there must be separate panels.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent Law. Just trying for comprehensive access to slips.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1771.Opinion.1-8-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Patent.
Construction of claim did not bar defense that the order of operations was changed, as the construction implied the prior sequence.
De minimis differences in the two devices do not compel a finding of equivalence, as the changes should be considered relative to the portion of the device devoted to the function.
JMOL finding of no invalidity rested on an improper late construction of the claim.
(Or something like, or utterly unlike, that.)
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1437.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
Construction of claim did not bar defense that the order of operations was changed, as the construction implied the prior sequence.
De minimis differences in the two devices do not compel a finding of equivalence, as the changes should be considered relative to the portion of the device devoted to the function.
JMOL finding of no invalidity rested on an improper late construction of the claim.
(Or something like, or utterly unlike, that.)
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1437.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: In re Urbanski
Patent.
A method of hydrating fibers (or something like that) doesn't teach away from a subsequent process -- a user wanting a different composition would simply vary the hydration.
Or something like (or utterly unlike) that.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1272.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
A method of hydrating fibers (or something like that) doesn't teach away from a subsequent process -- a user wanting a different composition would simply vary the hydration.
Or something like (or utterly unlike) that.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1272.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Redline Detection LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.
Patent.
No plain error in Patent Board's refusal to accept new evidence offered solely on the basis of timeliness and relevance. Agency has discretion, not arbitrary/capricious.
Use of a fog machine to test for leaks in a conduit was not particularly obvious.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1047.Opinion.12-29-2015.1.PDF
No plain error in Patent Board's refusal to accept new evidence offered solely on the basis of timeliness and relevance. Agency has discretion, not arbitrary/capricious.
Use of a fog machine to test for leaks in a conduit was not particularly obvious.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1047.Opinion.12-29-2015.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Patent, Appellate Procedure
Retained on remand after Supreme Court review of the question whether belief of non-infringement operates as a bar to inducement liability, the Court finds no infringement - either direct or inducement - as the processes are not identical.
[Standard patent caveat: None of this is legal advice, but Patent is one of the areas in which it's not merely likely that we're wrong about this stuff, but it's almost certain that we're ludicrously off-base. -CB]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1042.Opinion.12-22-2015.1.PDF
Retained on remand after Supreme Court review of the question whether belief of non-infringement operates as a bar to inducement liability, the Court finds no infringement - either direct or inducement - as the processes are not identical.
[Standard patent caveat: None of this is legal advice, but Patent is one of the areas in which it's not merely likely that we're wrong about this stuff, but it's almost certain that we're ludicrously off-base. -CB]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1042.Opinion.12-22-2015.1.PDF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)