|
|
|
06.15.2015
|
www.mckoolsmith.com
| View in web browser
|
 |
Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms Are Indefinite Where No Algorithm Is Disclosed and the Claimed Function Requires a Specially-Programmed Computer
Eon Corp. IP Holdings, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC
In affirming the grant of summary judgment that all claims of the patent-in-suit are indefinite, the Federal Circuit held that computer-implemented means-plus-function claim terms are indefinite where no algorithm is disclosed and the claimed function requires a specially-programmed computer. Read more>>
|
Court Decides Meaning of “Competitive Injury” Necessary for Standing in a False Marking Action
Sukumar v. Nautilus, Inc.
In affirming the grant of summary judgment that Sukumar had not demonstrated standing to bring a false marking claim against Nautilus, the court determined the meaning of the term “competitive injury” in Section 292(b) of the false marking statute, as amended by the AIA. The court held that a potential competitor may suffer competitive injury if it has attempted to enter the market. Read more>>
|
 |
 |
Fact that PTO Issued New Reissue Claims Cannot Be Used to Support Argument that Claims Were Not Impermissibly Broadened
ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that reissue claims that were broader than the claims of the original patent, as construed by the court, were invalid for being filed more than two years after issuance of the patent. In a prior proceeding, the district court had construed the claim term “a very high mechanical resistance” as being limited to steel with a tensile strength greater than 1500 MPa, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Read more>>
|
Federal Circuit Affirms Apple’s Patent Infringement Claims and Damages Awards Against Samsung, But Reverses Apple’s Trade Dress Claims on the Ground of Functionality
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Samsung’s post-trial motions with respect to the patent issues, but reversed on the trade dress issues. With respect to Apple’s trade dress claims, the court held that Apple had failed to prove that its unregistered trade dress was non-functional, i.e., that the product features serve no purpose other than identification, and held that the individual elements of Apple’s registered trade dress (the icons on the screen of the iPhone) were functional, and therefore not protectable as trade dress. Read more>>
|
 |
 |
No Inducement Where a Drug Label Does Not Encourage, Recommend, or Promote the Practice of the Claimed Method
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Here, the patents-in-suit involved new methods for using the drug Mitigare for treating acute gout. The patentee Takeda contended that the accused infringer Hikma was liable for inducing infringement by selling Mitigare having a label that induced infringement by patients. Read more>>
|
Post-FDA-Approval Activities to Update a Product Label and to Change the Approval Process for ANDA Applicants Falls Within the Safe Harbor Provisions of Section 271(e)(1)
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement on the grounds that Elan’s post-approval activities met the safe harbor requirements of Section 271(e)(1). The court held that Section 271(e)(1) was not limited to pre-approval activities so long as the activities were not routine post-approval reporting. Read more>>
|
 |
The Federal Circuit Clarifies the Requirements for Proving Joint Direct Infringement, But Refuses to Extend Joint Direct Infringement to Joint Tortfeasors
Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
On remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit affirmed its prior opinion that Limelight did not directly infringe the asserted method claims, holding that Limelight did not perform all of the required steps and that the record contained no basis on which to impose liability on Limelight for the actions of its customers who carried out the other steps. Read more>>
|
 |
The Federal Circuit had Jurisdiction to Determine Whether the District Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear an Appeal of a Priority Decision in a Post-AIA Interference
Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research
In an interference, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that one of the applicants was estopped from establishing priority because it had lost two prior interferences covering the same subject matter. Read more>>
|
The Purchase of “Crucial” Components From Third Party U.S. Suppliers is Insufficient to Satisfy the Investment/Labor/Capital Requirements for Proving Domestic Industry Under Section 337
Lelo Inc. v. International Trade Comm.
The Federal Circuit reversed the Commission’s decision holding that the complainant Standard had satisfied the domestic industry requirement of Section 337. Read more>>
|
 |
|
