Latest Posts › Patent Infringement

Share:

Litigation Update | July 2025

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. - Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit found that claims reciting a...more

Not So Cozy: Prosecution History Disclaimer for Design Patents

TOP BRAND LLC v. COZY COMFORT CO. LLC - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Summary: Arguments presented during prosecution of a design-patent application...more

A Question for Everyone: Juries Must Determine Infringement on a Patent-By-Patent Basis

OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. APPLE INC. - Before Prost, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Patent plaintiffs have a right to a unanimous verdict on each...more

Speculative Plans Are Insufficient to Establish Standing in PTAB Appeals

INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. - Before Moore, Hughes, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Speculative plans for potentially infringing activity are insufficient to...more

Domestic Marketing and Distribution of an Imported Product May Satisfy the Economic Prong of the Domestic-Industry Requirement

LASHIFY, INC. V. ITC - Before Prost, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Warehousing, quality control, distribution, sales, and marketing expenses incurred in connection with an imported...more

Reversal on Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents

Conflicting expert testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of a reverse doctrine of equivalents argument....more

Falsely Claiming Patent Protection May Violate the Lanham Act

Before Reyna, Cunningham and Albright. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Summary: A claim that an unpatented product feature is “patented,” “proprietary,” or “exclusive” may violate...more

Relying on Irrelevant Factors to Award Attorneys’ Fees Is a Red Flag

Before Moore, Lourie, and Albright.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Summary: Awarding attorneys’ fees may be an abuse of discretion if the court relies on factors that should be...more

Reliably Determining Reasonable Royalty Rates From Lump-Sum Licenses

Summary:  License agreements containing a lump-sum payment “based on” a royalty rate may provide reliable evidence of a reasonable royalty rate for the licensed patent. EcoFactor sued Google for patent infringement over...more

Jury Instructions Must Describe All Relevant Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness

INLINE PLASTICS CORP V. LACERTA GROUP, LLC - Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts....more

Being Known Is Not Enough

VIRTEK VISION INTERNATIONAL ULC, v. ASSEMBLY GUIDANCE SYSTEMS, INC., DBA ALIGNED VISION - Before Moore, Hughes, and Stark.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)....more

A Terminal Disclaimer Is Not an Escape Hatch

IN RE CELLECT, LLC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Obviousness-type double patenting analyses for patents with Patent Term Adjustments are based on the...more

Evidence of Commercial Success and the Prior Art

YITA LLC V. MACNEIL IP LLC - Before Taranto, Chen, and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Evidence of commercial success that relates entirely to an individual claim element that was...more

Who Bears the Burden of Proof for IPR Estoppel?

IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. v. VALVE CORP. Before Lourie, Clevenger, and Stark.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Summary: The patentee has the burden of proving that...more

Claim Directed to Specific, Hardware-Based Data Structure That Enables Technological Improvement Is Eligible Under § 101

ADASA INC. v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION - Before Moore, Hughes and Stark.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Summary: A claim directed to a specific, hardware-based data...more

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, Inc.

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

16 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