Showing posts with label Your guess is as good as mine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Your guess is as good as mine. Show all posts

Federal Circuit: VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Substantial evidence for finding of infringement. In determining similar function under the doctrine of equivalents, schematic diagrams of functions are less important than actual function-location maps, in addition to the determination of whether the differences in the allocations of functionalities are substantial.  Abuse of discretion to base the damages calculation on the results of a scientific test that considered both infringing and non-infringing functions.

Denial of motion to amend the answer was an abuse of discretion given diligent pursuit of claim, and given that the question of whether affiliates are bound by a contract under the state law identified in the contract is not a black-letter rule, and would require further development.

VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Patent Cases in the Federal Circuit

 Sometimes I take a swing at these, but the time is running short today.

https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2163.OPINION.3-24-2022_1926100.pdf

https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1725.OPINION.3-24-2022_1926111.pdf


-CB

Federal Circuit: In Re The Board of Trustees

 

Claim is ineligible for patent, because it recites abstract mathematical concepts without practical technological improvements beyond increasing statistical accuracy, and, taken as a whole, is embodied as well-known, routine and conventional actions of performing an algorithm on a computer.

(Perhaps.  We don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patents.)


 In Re The Board of Trustees

Federal Circuit: PGS Physical v. Iancu

(Reminder: We don't know many things.  We especially don't know Patent.)

Agency decision presenting both non-instituted claims and rulings on instituted claims and grounds is sufficiently final for judicial review.

Erroneous non-institution is waiveable, and presents no sua sponte obligation in subsequent judicial review.

(Again, completely guessing here.)

Board decision on motivation to combine prior art was reasonable.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2470.Opinion.6-6-2018.1.pdf

Second Circuit: Orchard Hill Master Fund v. SBAC Corp.


Contracts, Your guess is as good as mine


Where a contract for payment of interest on a note compels offsetting payments where the note is converted between the computation date and the payment date, the payment of final interest to the noteholder upon maturity is a contractually distinct mechanism, and the contract provision canceling the first mechanism is most appropriately read as enabling the second.

Perhaps.


Orchard Hill Master Fund v. SBAC Corp.

Ninth Circuit: EQUITY INCOME PARTNERS, LP V. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMP.


Insurance, Contracts


Certified questions to Arizona on insurance policy contract. 

Facts:

Lender lent purchaser money to buy land.  Land was later determined to be without access.  Lender's insurer assessed the impact of the loss of access, and paid the lender that amount.  Lender's subsequent assessment said that the insurer had undervalued the impact.  Lender then purchased the properties with a full-credit bid at sale of estate, and the insurer now maintains that lender's payment to itself absolved the insurer of further liability vis a vis the earlier transaction.

Questions about the relevant boilerplate language certified to state high court.


EQUITY INCOME PARTNERS, LP V. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMP.

Federal Circuit: Per Aarsleff A/S v. US

[Opinion issued under seal. Redacted version to follow.]



  Per Aarsleff A/S v. US

Ninth Circuit: Grand Jury Investigation

At this hour, the Ninth has posted an opinion and an order appearing to revoke that opinion for redaction.  As other cases have been posted since, we'll just link without comment to both the opinion and the order.

https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/15-50450o.pdf

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/15-50450.pdf