Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Ozobax is indicated for treatment of spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, and particularly flexor spasms and concomitant pain, clonus, and muscular rigidity. While the use...more
On May 15, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s (“Teva”) petition for certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, ending a nearly nine-year court...more
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION v. MESO SCALE DIAGNOSTICS, LLC - Before Newman, Prost, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A finding of inducing infringement requires...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a generic drug manufacturer’s petition for en banc review of a panel opinion finding induced infringement liability despite the manufacturer’s adherence to skinny...more
In a redux visit, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the record compelled reversal of a district court’s refusal to reinstate a jury’s willful infringement verdict and enhanced damages award but...more
TECSEC, INC., v. ADOBE INC. Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Summary: Even if it would be objectively reasonable to view a defendant’s conduct as...more
Addressing the issue of whether a generic pharmaceutical company can be found to induce infringement even when all patented uses have been “carved out” of the label (resulting in a so-called “skinny label”), the US Court of...more
On March 2, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued Comcast v. ITC and held that the International Trade Commission (ITC) can block the importation of products that do not infringe a U.S. patent at the time of importation. The case...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2149, et al. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019) - In a lengthy decision following a bench trial, the Court addressed a matter of...more
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2106-2599 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2018) In an appeal from a jury verdict and JMOLs in a patent infringement case, the...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Reasonable royalty patent damages cannot include a royalty for...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
Intercontinental v. Kellogg involves a fight between two food industry powerhouses, Kraft and Kellogg, in which a majority of the panel affirms summary judgment of obviousness of a patent directed to a resealable cookie...more
In EmeraChem v Volkswagen the Circuit reverses a determination of obviousness because the ?Board did not provide the patentee with an adequate opportunity to address a prior art reference ?that formed a principal basis for...more
This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. ...more
In a non-precedential decision issued in Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Breckenridge, and...more
Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more
On January 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the judgement that Eli Lilly’s U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ’209 Patent”) was valid and infringed under the doctrine of...more
On February 22, 2017 in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp, the Supreme Court in a 7-0 judgment (Chief Justice Roberts having recused himself) held that for there to be active inducement of infringement by export of...more
PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR Must Explain Its Basis for a Motivation to Combine References - In In Re: Nuvasive, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1670, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s obviousness finding in an IPR,...more
The deadline has come and gone for the ITC and patentee Align to file petitions for certiorari seeking review by the Supreme Court of the Federal Circuit’s decision in ClearCorrect. On November 10, 2015, a panel of the...more
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding active inducement infringement under 35 USC § 271(f)(1) in a case important to US manufacturers...more