|
|
|
08.04.2015
|
www.mckoolsmith.com
| View in web browser
|
 |
Court Affirms Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd.,
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendant is a South Korean company who manufactured separators used in lithium-ion batteries sold to OEM manufacturers outside of the U.S. who used the separators in batteries for electronic vehicles and for consumer electronic products. Read More>>
|
Court Affirms Holding That Two Patents Are Invalid for Claiming Non-Patent Eligible Subject Matter Under §101
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) National Association
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that two of the asserted patents were invalid under §101 as claiming patent ineligible subject matter and affirmed the court’s construction for “machine readable instruction form” which rendered those claims not infringed. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Affirms Rejection of Covered Business Method Patent Claims For Claiming Non-Patent Eligible Subject Matter
Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.
In an appeal from a final written decision of a “covered business method patent” review under Section 18 of the AIA holding the patent-at-issue invalid as claiming non-patent eligible subject matter, the Federal Circuit addressed a number of issues of first impression regarding covered business method patent review procedures in addition to affirming the
PTO’s ultimate holding of invalidity. Read More>>
|
Court Precluded Subsequent Litigation Against Customers On Non-Litigated Issues Under the Kessler Doctrine Where Manufacturer’s Product Was Previously Held to Not Infringe
SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot , Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment that the patent infringement claims brought by SpeedTrack accusing infringement by four Oracle customers for their use of Oracle-provided software were precluded under the Kessler doctrine. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Remands for Further Proceedings to Determine Whether Documents Produced In U.S. Case Can Be Used in Foreign Actions
In re: Posco
On a petition for writ of mandamus, the court remanded for further proceedings. Read More>>
|
Court Reverses Award of $93,400,000 For Lost Extraterritorial Sales
WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corporation
The Federal Circuit reversed the jury’s award of $93,400,000 in lost profit damages where the infringement was determined under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(2). Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Denial of Attorney Fees Affirmed Where the Patentee’s Position Did Not Stand Out and It Did Not Commit Litigation Misconduct
SFA Systems, LLC v. Newegg Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant Newegg’s motion for attorney fees under Section 285. Read More>>
|
Dismissal of Appeal of PTAB Decision to Institute Covered Business Method Patent Review Was Proper
Versata Development Group, Inc. v. Lee
In this companion case to the Versata appeal of the PTAB decision on the covered business method patent review which ultimately held the patent invalid under Section 101 for failing to claim patentable subject matter... Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Federal Circuit Reversed Judgment as a Matter of Law and Held that the Jury Verdict of Nonobviousness was Supported by Substantial Evidence
Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc.
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict that the patent claims at issue were not invalid as being obvious. Read More>>
|
In a 6-5 Decision, the En Banc Panel Denies Petition for Rehearing Seeking to Have Claim Terms Given Their Actual Meaning in IPR Proceedings, Not Their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
In re: Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC
In a 6-5 decision, the en banc panel of the Federal Circuit denied Cuozzo’s petition for an en banc rehearing of the panel decision holding that the PTO did not err by applying the broadest reasonable standard in inter partes review proceedings (IPR). Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Pharmaceutical Claims Are Invalid Under the On Sale Bar
The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the patent owner had not commercially offered the claimed pharmaceutical invention for sale before the critical date, because the company hired by the patent owner to manufacture the product had only sold manufacturing services, not pharmaceutical batches and because the batches fall under the experimental use exception. Read More>>
|
PTO Did Not Err in Denying Motions Seeking Additional Patent Term Extension Days
Daiichi Sankyo Company v. Lee
The patent owner appealed the decisions of the district court rejecting the patent owner’s arguments that the PTO erred in calculating its patent term extension. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
The Federal Circuit Interpreted Provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act
Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
In a case involving the interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act involving the procedures for seeking FDA approval of biosimilar drugs, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss Amgen’s state law claims of unfair competition and conversion because... Read More>>
|
The PTAB Erred When It Held that It Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear the Requester’s Appeal in an Inter Partes Reexamination
Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation
The Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the PTAB holding that, in an inter partes reexamination proceeding, it lacked jurisdiction to hear Airbus’s cross-appeal of the PTO’s refusal to adopt obviousness rejections of newly-added claims on the grounds that the prior art did not raise any substantial new question of patentability. Read More>>
|
 |
|
