SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC v. WILLOWOOD, LLC -
Before Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Summary: Infringement under § 271(g) does not require a...more
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH -
Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the District of Delaware.
Summary: Claims directed to improving the functionality of one tool that is part of a system do not...more
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.
Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Reyna concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part
Summary: The language “unobvious over the prior art” in...more
9/28/2019
/ § 42.301(b) ,
Appeals ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Innovative Technology ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Question of Law ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Section 101 ,
Section 103
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Prost, Schall, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously leaves no room for assignor estoppel to apply in...more
11/13/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) ,
Appeals ,
Assignor Estoppel ,
Claim Construction ,
Cross-Appeals ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Reaffirmation ,
Remand ,
Reversal
Federal Circuit Summary -
Before Prost, Bryson, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Summary: (1) To uphold a jury verdict of infringement, evidence must...more
Federal Circuit Summaries -
Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An unsupported expert opinion does not constitute substantial evidence to contradict a prior art...more
6/1/2018
/ Anticipatory Reference ,
Appeals ,
Expert Testimony ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
Vacated
The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the PTAB’s final written decisions on Wasica’s tire pressure monitoring patents in Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., No. 2015-2078 (Fed. Cir....more
The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims from Nidec Motor Corp.’s patent were anticipated in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., Case No. 2016-1900 (Fed. Cir....more