|
|
|
09.16.2015
|
www.mckoolsmith.com
| View in web browser
|
 |
Claims That Were Previously Definite Under the Pre-Nautilus Standard Are Now Indefinite Under the Nautilus Standard
The Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada)
Applying the pre-Nautilus standard for determining claim indefiniteness, the district court held that the claim term “slope of a strain hardening coefficient greater than or equal to 1.3” was not indefinite and entered judgment of infringement, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Read More>>
|
Court Affirms that Glaucoma Drug Patent Is Not Obvious and Does Not Violate the Written Description and Enablement Requirements
Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
Following a bench trial, the district court held that Allergan’s glaucoma drug patent was not invalid as being obvious and that it did not violate the written description or enablement requirements. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Holds That a Licensee to an Expired Patent Had Standing to Sue
Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.
The Federal Circuit addressed three issues in this case. First, it held that Keranos, who had licensed the patents-in-suit from their owner after the patents had expired, held all substantial rights to the patents and therefore had standing to sue. Read More>>
|
Court Holds that the ITC Can Exclude Imported Products for Inducement of Subsequent Direct Infringement
Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
The issue decided by the en banc court was whether Section 337, which referred to “articles that infringe” and which applies to “unfair trade acts,” permitted the ITC to issue an exclusion order barring the importation of goods, where the goods themselves do not infringe, but the person outside the U.S. (a “seller”) who imported the goods into the U.S. had induced the infringement of a U.S. Patent by a “buyer” in the U.S. who used the goods in an infringing manner. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Limited Damages Award to Devices Actually Sold or Imported into the U.S., Even For Devices That Were Made and Used Exclusively Outside of the U.S.
Carnegie-Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdicts of infringement, no invalidity for anticipation and the rejection of the laches defense, awarding damages for chips imported into the U.S., and awarding the reasonable royalty amount of fifty cents per computer chip sold. Read More>>
|
Court Reversed Indefiniteness, Non-Infringement, and Design Patent Functionality Holdings
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.
In a case involving both utility and design patents, the court reversed the district court’s finding of indefiniteness and grant of summary judgment of non-infringement on the utility patents and reversed the court’s finding that the design patents were invalid for being directed exclusively to functional features and affirmed the alternative finding that the design patents were not infringed. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Reversed JMOL Where Evidence Demonstrated Obviousness
ABT Systems, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co.
The court reversed the district court’s denial of Emerson’s JMOL motion regarding the jury’s verdict that the asserted claims of ABT’s patent were not obvious in view of four prior art references. Read More>>
|
Court Reverses the Construction of “Frangible Section” Where the Limitations Required by the District Court Were Not Required by the Specification or the Prosecution History Statements
Inline Plastics Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC
The court reversed the district court’s claim construction for the term “frangible section” and remanded for further findings relating to infringement. The district court construed “frangible section” to require two score lines. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Vacates Board Decision on Anticipation Where the Board’s Opinion Provided Inadequate Predicate for its Decision
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee.
The court vacated and remanded the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in an ex parte reexamination affirming the rejection of claims as being anticipated. Read More>>
|
En Banc Court Clarifies Joint Infringement Under Section 271(a) and Finds Joint Infringement Where One Party Conditions Another Party’s Participation on Performance and Timing
Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
In response to the Supreme Court’s guidance that the Federal Circuit may have erred by too narrowly circumscribing the scope of § 271(a) with respect to the issue of divided infringement, the unanimous en banc court set forth the law of divided infringement and concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Limelight directly infringed under § 271(a). Read More>>
|
 |
 |
PTO Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Disclosing Certain Confidential Information Because “Special Circumstances” Existed
Hyatt v. Lee
The applicant had pending numerous applications claiming priority to one or more of numerous applications. In all, there were 45,000 independent claims and 115,000 total claims filed, based on only 12 specifications. Read More>>
|
Statute Of Limitations Precluded Breach of Contract Action Where the Employee/Inventor’s Actions Were Not “Inherently Unknowable”
Personalized User Model, LLP v. Google Inc.
The court affirmed the district court’s grant of JMOL in favor of Plaintiff on Google’s breach of contract counterclaim. Plaintiff had developed its patented invention while employed at SRI and had an employment contract with SRI requiring the disclosure and transfer to SRI of all inventions discovered while employed by SRI. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Affirmed Where Proof of Infringement Was Based on Standards and Patents Were Deemed “Essential” When Included As Part of a Licensing Pool
JVC Kenwood Corp. v. Nero, Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment of no inducing or contributory infringement by Nero for supplying software to end users who used the software to play, copy, and record data to and from DVD and Blu-Ray discs. Read More>>
|
|
