Latest Posts › Patent Litigation

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

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

Potential Claim Construction Error Is Harmless When Not Relied Upon by the Board

BOT M8 LLC v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC - Before Prost, Reyna, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party challenging the Board’s decision by alleging claim construction...more

Federal Circuit Finds Patent for Dietary Supplements Invalid Under § 101 for Reciting Naturally Occurring Milk Components

In ChromaDex, Inc. v Elysium Health, Inc., Appeal No. 2022-1116, the Federal Circuit upheld the invalidity of a claim reciting a supplement comprising nicotinamide riboside (“NR”), a component found in cow’s milk, under 35...more

Patent Term Adjustment Under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(C)(iii) Requires Reversal of Adverse Determination of Patentability

Summary: When a patent claim is subject to adverse determinations of patentability first before the PTO and again after appeal, the claim is not entitled to patent term adjustment for the period of the appeal even if 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

Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to demonstrate inherency. Instead,...more

Xitronix Corporation v. KLA-Tencor Corporation [Order]

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Prost, Newman, Mayer, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. Petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Summary: Judge Newman...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

11 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