|
|
|
05.19.2016
|
www.mckoolsmith.com
| View in web browser
|
 |
Changes in the Law of Divided-Infringement Following Akamai Were Sufficient to Vacate a Prior Judgment of Non-Infringement
Robert Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd.
The district court granted a motion to dismiss Mankes’ complaint on the grounds that he could not establish direct infringement under the law of “joint infringement” as it existed in early 2015, prior to the Federal Circuit’s decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc... Read More>>
|
Court Affirms Denial of Joint Motion to Vacate Judgment of Patent Invalidity With Prejudice
Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc.
Cardpool appealed the ruling of the district court denying the parties’ joint motion to vacate the district court’s judgment of patent invalidity insofar as the judgment was with prejudice. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Affirms PTAB Decision That Claim is Not Anticipated and Court Has No Jurisdiction to Review PTAB Decision Not to Institute IPR on Redundant Ground
HP, Inc. v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC
HP, who instituted the IPR on MPHJ’s patent, appeals the decision of the PTAB finding claim 13 not anticipated by the prior art. Read More>>
|
Court Reversed PTAB’s Finding of Obviousness Based on an Erroneous Claim Construction
Pride Mobility Products Corporation v. Permobil, Inc.
In this IPR proceeding, the PTAB cancelled all of the claims-at-issue as being obvious over the asserted prior art. The claims related to wheelchairs designed to travel stably over obstacles. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Delaware Court Correctly Asserted Personal Jurisdiction and Correctly Found Proper Venue Over Indiana Company Who Sold Allegedly Infringing Products into Delaware
In re: TC Heartland LLC
Kraft Foods Group sued TC Heartland in Delaware for infringement of Kraft’s patents.
Heartland is an Indiana company that is headquartered in Indiana. Read More>>
|
District Court Erred by Denying Motion for New Trial Where Expert Gave False Testimony And Withheld Documents Relating to Testing Showing Contradictory Results
Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
Following a jury trial, in which the jury found that Rembrandt’s patent had not been infringed by Johnson & Johnson, Rembrandt learned through an investigation of its own that Johnson & Johnson’s expert, Dr. Bielawski, had given false testimony at trial. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
District Court Erred in Construing a Design Patent Claim By Excluding Functional Elements from the Construction
Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Company, Inc.
In a design patent case involving the design of a personal flotation device having two arm bands connected to a torso piece, the Federal Circuit reversed the finding of non-infringement based on an erroneous claim construction. Read More>>
|
Infringement Counterclaim Filed in Response to a Declaratory Judgment Claim Gave the District Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over the Infringement Claims
Microsoft Corporation v. Geotag, Inc.
Geotag appealed the district court’s decision: (1) dismissing Google’s declaratory judgment complaint while retaining jurisdiction over GeoTag’s infringement counterclaims; and (2) granting summary judgment of non-infringement by Google. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Jury Award of $85 Million Against Google Reversed Due to Incorrect Claim Constructions
Simpleair, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
Simpleair sued Google for infringement of its patent relating to data communications connecting on-line networks with on-line and off-line computers. Read More>>
|
Patent Claims Directed to Amplifying and Analyzing Genetic Sequences Are Directed to Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal based on the patent claims being directed to ineligible subject matter under Section 101. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Patent Owner’s Predecessors’ Silence and Conduct Together With Detrimental Reliance Was Sufficient for Summary Judgment of Equitable Estoppel
High Point SARL v. Sprint Nextel Corporation
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment that equitable estoppel precludes prosecution of High Point’s lawsuit against Sprint. The patents-in-suit were originally assigned to AT&T Bell Labs, who assigned them to Lucent, who assigned them to Avaya, who sold them to High Point in March 2008. Read More>>
|
PTAB’s Claim Constructions Were Erroneous
In re: Man Machine Interface Technologies LLC.
The court reversed the PTAB’s constructions, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, of the terms “adapted to be held by the human hand” and “thumb switch being adapted for activation by the human thumb.” Read More>>
|
 |
|
