Latest Posts › Patent Infringement

Share:

A Request for Sanctions Before the ITC Is Not Appealable to the Federal Circuit

REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION v. ITC - Before Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals of non-final determinations from...more

An Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Under 35 U.S.C. §285 Does Not Preclude Sanctions Pursuant to the Court’s Inherent Authority

PS PRODUCTS INC. V. PANTHER TRADING CO. INC. - Before Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Eastern District of Arkansas. Summary: Section 285 does not prohibit an award of deterrence sanctions under the court’s...more

Federal Circuit Revisits Standard for Enablement of Antibody Claims

In Baxalta Incorporated v. Genentech, Inc., 2022-1461, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting Genentech’s motion for summary judgment that claims 1-4, 9, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,033,590 (“the...more

Required Testing as Part of an Offer for Sale Does Not Preclude a Finding of a Commercial Sale for On-Sale Bar Defense

SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING v. U.S. VENTURE, INC. Before Prost, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Summary: References to testing in an offer for sale...more

Prosecution History Disclaimer and Estoppel Lead To Noninfringement

TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS Before Prost, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: An applicant’s arguments distinguishing prior art during patent...more

Single-Entity Requirement for Infringement Under § 271(a) Does Not Apply to § 271(g)

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

Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Company

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which prohibits the Board from instituting an IPR based on a petition filed...more

Jury Orders Apple Inc. to Pay $500 Million to VirnetX for Infringing Patents Covering A Secure Communication Link

Patent Judgments & Awards - In April 2018, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded VirnetX Inc. (“VirnetX”) a total of more than $500,000,000 in its patent infringement suit against Apple Inc. (“Apple”). The four...more

U.S. Supreme Court Significantly Restricts Patent Owners’ Ability to Control Resale of Patented Items

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. that an authorized sale of a patented product exhausts all of the patentee’s rights in the...more

9 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide