 |
Continuation Patents Claiming Priority to an Original Application Are Not Entitled to the Patent Term Adjustments Applicable to the Patent Issuing from the Original Application
Mohsenzadeh v. Lee
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the government on the patentee’s claim that the PTO had erred by refusing to give any patent term adjustment to two patents issuing from continuation applications where the patent issuing from the original application was allowed a 1,476 day patent term adjustment. Read more>>
|
Court Affirms Dismissal for Failure to Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Under §101
OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of Amazon’s motion to dismiss for failure to recite patent eligible subject matter under section 101. Read more>>
|
 |
 |
Court Affirms Dismissal Where Claims Were Not Directed to Patent Eligible Subject Matter Under Section 101
Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding, on a motion to dismiss, that the claims of the patent-at-issue were not patent eligible under Section 101. Read more>>
|
Court Affirms Obvious-Type Double Patenting Grounds of Invalidity
G.D. Searle LLC. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The court affirmed the holding that the reissue patent-at-issue was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting. Read more>>
|
 |
 |
Court Dismisses Appeal from PTO Decision to Vacate Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
GTNX, Inc. v. Inttra, Inc.
The Federal Circuit granted Intrra’s motion to dismiss GTNX’s appeal from the PTAB’s decision to reconsider its institution of GTNX’s “covered business patent” review proceedings and to vacate its institution decisions and terminate the proceedings. Read more>>
|
Court Found that Defense Counsel’s Actions Were Merely Sloppy, and Therefore Not Misrepresentation or Misconduct
Gaymar Industries, Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc.
The Federal Circuit remanded the district court’s finding that the case was not exceptional for the purpose of awarding attorney fees under Section 285 to the prevailing defendant. Read more>>
|
 |
 |
Court Reverses Erroneous Construction Where the Meaning of the Term Could Be Ascertained from the Specification
Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Company
The Federal Circuit held that the district court’s construction of two of the three appealed claim terms was incorrect, and therefore it reversed the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of certain asserted claims. Read more>>
|
Court Upholds Construction Where District Court’s Factual Findings Based on Extrinsic Expert Testimony were not Clearly Erroneous
Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation
On remand from the Supreme Court following its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals, the court affirmed all of the appealed claim constructions. Read more>>
|
 |
 |
Court Vacates Civil Contempt Finding Where the Sole Claim that was the Subject of the Injunction Was Later Invalidated by the PTO in a Reexamination Proceeding
ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.
In this case, the district court originally found two of the asserted system claims and three of the asserted method claims not invalid, and a jury found that Lawson infringed those claims. Read more>>
|
Court Vacates Jury Verdict of Infringement And Dismisses Action For Lack of Standing Due to Licensee Lacking All Substantial Rights and the Patentee Refusing to Be Joined
Alps South, LLC v. The Ohio Willow Wood Company
Following a trial that included a jury verdict of patent validity and willful infringement, the Federal Circuit dismissed the action on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing when it originally filed its complaint. Read more>>
|
 |
 |
District Court Issued Four Erroneous Claim Constructions
TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed four claim constructions provided by the district court. First, the court held that the district court erred by construing a part of the preamble that described the purpose of the claimed method and was unnecessary for antecedent basis or to breathe life into the claim, even where another part of the preamble was construed because it did provide antecedent basis. Read more>>
|
Federal Circuit Finds that the PTAB’s Constructions Were Overly Broad, Even Under the “Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” Standard
Microsoft Corporation v. Proxyconn, Inc.
On appeal from the decision of the PTAB in an IPR proceeding, the Federal Circuit was asked to consider whether the Board had correctly applied the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard to claim terms when finding certain claims to be unpatentable and when affirming the patentability of one claim. Read more>>
|
 |
 |
Following Teva, the Court Gives No Deference to the District Court’s Constructions, as the Intrinsic Evidence Fully Determines the Proper Constructions
Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
On remand from the Supreme Court following the decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s construction of two claim terms and thus reversed the district court’s infringement holding. Read more>>
|
Issue of Indefiniteness Was Reviewed De Novo – The Understanding of a Claim Term By a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art is a Legal Issue That Cannot Be Converted to A Factual Issue By Reliance on Expert Testimony
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
On remand from the Supreme Court, following the Court’s decision that the Federal Circuit should give deference to a district court’s factual findings, but not to legal issues, and following the Court’s decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. in which the Court modified the indefiniteness standard to be whether the claim, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Read more>>
|
 |
 |
Patent Claims Directed to the Detection of Fetal DNA Are Directed to a Natural Phenomenon and Therefore Are Not Patent Eligible Under §101
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court that the claimed methods for using cell-free fetal DNA is not patent eligible as claiming a natural phenomenon. The claimed process did not alter the natural cff-DNA and the result of the process was natural paternally inherited cff-DNA. Read More>>
|
|
