|
|
|
11.11.2015
|
www.mckoolsmith.com
| View in web browser
|
 |
Causal Nexus Requirement for Irreparable Harm Can Be Met Where the Patentee Shows That the Patented Features Impact Consumers’ Decisions to Purchase, Not that they are the Exclusive Reason
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
The court vacated the district court’s decision to deny Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction and remanded. Read More>>
|
Claim Term “Compliance Mechanism” is a Means-Plus-Function Term That Lacks Sufficient Structure to Be Definite
Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corporation
The court affirmed the district court’s holding that all claims of the asserted patent were indefinite under Section 112(2), because the term “compliance mechanism” is a means-plus-function term that lacks sufficient structure. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Consumer Protection Act Case Could not be Removed to Federal Court
State of Vermont v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC
This case involved claims by the State of Vermont under its Consumer Protection Act against a non-practicing entity for sending allegedly deceptive demand letters. Read More>>
|
Court Affirmed Holding that New Claims Obtained in Reexamination Were Not Substantially Identical to Original Claims
R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc.
The court affirmed the district court’s holding that new claims obtained in a reexamination were not substantially identical to the original claims. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Affirms Dismissal of Case Alleging Use by the U.S. Which Was Not Brought in the Court of Claims
Astornet Technologies Inc. v. BAE Systems, Inc.
The technology at issue was systems used to scan airline passenger boarding passes. The
patentee sued three contractors in the Maryland district court for inducing or contributing to the direct infringement by the United States (the TSA) of the patents-in-suit. Read More>>
|
Court Affirms Finding that Drug Patent is Not Obvious
Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC
In a Hatch-Waxman ANDA infringement case, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment of no invalidity and the denial of defendants’ motion to amend it invalidity contentions to add an on sale defense, but reversed the grant of summary judgment that the supplier of some of the ingredients to the defendants to obtain FDA approval was liable for
inducing infringement. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Affirms Holding of Invalidity in Reexamination and Reiterates that the PTO’s Burden in Reexamination is Preponderance of the Evidence
Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee
The court affirmed the district court’s holding that the PTO correctly found claim 1 of the patent-in-suit obvious in an ex parte reexamination. Read More>>
|
Court Affirms Jury Verdict Awarding $15 Million Lump Sum for Infringement
Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
The court affirmed the jury’s verdict of infringement, no invalidity, and an award of $15 million in “lump sum” damages. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Reversed Summary Judgment of Obviousness Where a Genuine Dispute Existed Over Whether a There Was a Motivation to Modify One of the References
Ivera Medical Corporation v. Hospira, Inc.
The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of obviousness. Read More>>
|
Court Reverses Jury’s Damages Award in Design Patent Case
Nordock, Inc. v. Systems Inc.
In a design patent infringement case, the court reversed the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the issue of damages and affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for JMOL as to validity and its Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment with respect to infringement by one version of the accused products. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Federal Circuit Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear an Appeal of the PTAB’s Decision to Institute an IPR Over the Patentee’s Objection that the Petition was Untimely
Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Apple instituted an IPR proceeding challenging the validity of Achates’ patents. Achates
contended to the PTAB that it should not institute the IPR, because, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), the real parties in interest were parties who Achates had sued more than a year ago who are in privity with Apple. Read More>>
|
Laches Re-Affirmed as a Defense to Patent Infringement that Precludes Recovery of Pre-Filing Damages
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC
In an en banc opinion, the court held that laches remains a defense to legal relief in a patent infringement lawsuit, i.e., precluding pre-filing damages; that laches could, as part of all material facts, be used to deny injunctive relief; and that, absent extraordinary circumstances, laches does not preclude an ongoing royalty. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
PTO Correctly Held that Patent Was Not Anticipated Because Petitioner Failed to Show That Alleged Prior Art Patent Was Entitled to the Filing Date of its Provisional Application
Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.
The court affirmed the decision of the PTAB in an inter partes review not to reject claims
of the patent-at-issue as anticipated by the Raymond patent, because the petitioner, Dynamic, had failed to meet its burden of proving that the Raymond patent was prior art, i.e., that it was entitled to the filing date of its provisional application under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)(2) (pre-AIA). Read More>>
|
|
