FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING February 5, 2016
|
|
- Julia Riley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 8, ISSUE 6 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING February 5, 2016 Site Update Solutions, LLC v. CBS Corp., No , February 1, 2016 (nonprecedential); Patent No. US RE40,683 Attorney s fee issues under Octane Fitness are within the sound discretion of the district court and such decisions can only be disturbed on appeal if they are based on an erroneous view of the law or other abuse of discretion. Facts/Background: Site Update sued 39 companies in the Eastern District of Texas in 2010, asserting claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. RE40,683. All defendants except for Newegg settled. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California. After the trial judge construed the claims in a way that favored Newegg, Site Update agreed to dismiss the claims against Newegg. Newegg sought an award of attorney fees, arguing that the suit by Site Update was frivolous and the company should be punished for pursuing a strategy of seeking nuisance value settlements. The district court disagreed, and denied Newegg s request for attorney s fees. Newegg appealed, and the district court was ordered to review its decision after the Supreme Court established a more lenient fee-shifting standard in Octane Fitness. After reviewing its decision, the district court again denied Newegg s request for attorney s fees, and this appeal followed. Holding: Affirmed. The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Newegg s request for fees. Under Octane Fitness, courts may award reasonable attorney s fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases. [A]n exceptional case is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party s litigating position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. Octane Fitness, 134 S. Ct. at Here, Site Update s positions were not so weak that they stand out from others, and losing a case does not automatically make it exceptional. Attorney fee issues are within the sound discretion of the district court. Decisions on fee award requests by district court can only be disturbed on appeal if they are based on an erroneous view of the law or otherwise constitute an abuse of discretion.
2 Page 2 Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma, LLC No , February 1, 2016 (precedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 7,674,799; 7,674,800; 7,683,072; and 8,114,383 The terms such as and and the like established that McGinity disclosed a broader group of analgesic than just those listed. In addition, opioids are a major class of analgesics, and oxycodone was a widely prescribed analgesic at the time. Therefore, selecting analgesics from a long list of pharmaceutical categories and further choosing oxycodone, even though it was not disclosed by the McGinity reference, was permissible because the selected disclosures used by the district court are all directly related to the teachings of the cited reference. Facts/Background: Oxycodone Hydrochloride (an opioid analgesic) is the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in Purdue s OxyContin. Purdue scientists discovered 8α as a source of the impurity at step one of the three-step process. The scientists added a hydrogenation step after step three to reduce the impurity level to less 10ppm. The 799, 800, and 072 patents all relate to this discovery (the low- ABUK patents). The 383 patent claimed a formulation of tablets that resisted breaking up to exertion of 500N of force. The district court found that all of the claims were invalid as anticipated by or obvious over prior art. The district court held the claims of the Low-ABUK patents invalid over a prior art reference that concededly disclosed a different process (the prior art taught that oxidation of thebaine (8β) produced 14-hydroxy and that it was well known in the art that 14- hydroxy could be removed using hydrogenation). Holding: Affirmed. With respect to the Low-ABUK patents, the Federal Circuit reasoned that although determining 8α as the source of 14-hydroxy in the end product was not obvious, that problem did not need to be solved to arrive at the claimed invention. Purdue did not claim a process of overcoming the problem of remaining 14-hydroxy in the API by performing the additional hydrogenation step. Instead, it claimed the end product (an oxycodone API with low-abuk levels). The asserted patents did not indicate any differences between the process to remove 8α derived 14-hydroxy and the process to remove 8β derived 14-hydroxy The product claims were obvious because one skilled in the art would not need to know the source of the 14-hydroxy to remove it. In determining validity of a product-byprocess claim, the Federal Circuit focused on the product and not the process of making it. Here, the derived from 8α[] limitation was a process limitation because the limitation did not describe the structure of 14-hydroxy. However, even if the claim did describe the structure of 14-hydroxy, it would not have made a difference because the structure of 14-hydroxy generated from 8α is the same structure generated from 8β. With respect to the 383 patent, Purdue argued that the district court erred because, unlike the oxycodone (an opioid analgesic) claimed in the 383 patent, McGinity only discloses various non-opioids therapeutic compounds to be used in formulations. In addition, Purdue argued that the district court picked analgesics from a long list of pharmaceutical categories, and then further selected oxycodone, which was not disclosed by the reference. However, the Federal Circuit ruled that although McGinity only discloses various non-opioids therapeutic compounds to be used in formulation, the compounds disclosed were analgesic to treat pain such as aspirin and the like. The terms such as and and the like established that McGinity disclosed a broader group of analgesic than just those listed in the application. The selected disclosures used by the district court are all directly related to the teachings of the cited reference.
3 Page 3 Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corporation No , February 2, 2016 (precedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 7,487,544; 7,979,907; 7,448,084; 7,913,306; 8,074,115; and 8,601,322 Claims must be construed separately if they are from separate patent families claiming different inventions, where the patents are filed separately and years apart, and with only one common inventor. Facts/Background: The 544 and 907 patents share the same specification and relate to detecting malicious attachments. The 084 and 306 patents share the same specification and relate to a method for detecting intrusions in computer system operations. The 115 and the 322 patents share a common specification and relate to detecting anomalous program executions. The district court construed byte sequence feature of the 544 and 907 patents to mean a feature that is a representation of machine code instructions of the executable. The district court construed probabilistic model of normal computer system usage of the 084 and 306 patents to mean a model of typical attack-free computer system usage that employs probability, and the generation of the model must be based only on attack-free data. The district court relied on its construction of normal computer usage from the 084 and 306 patents and construed the term anomalous in the 115 and 322 patent claims as requiring the model of normal computer usage be built only with attack-free data. The parties filed a joint motion for entry of final judgment of non-infringement on all asserted claims and a finding of invalidity for indefiniteness of claims 1 and 16 of the 544 patent, with Columbia reserving the right to appeal the claim construction. The district court entered partial judgement under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and Columbia appealed. Holding: Affirmed-in-part, Reversed-in-part, Remanded-in-part. At the outset, the Federal Circuit rejected Columbia s argument that the presumption of plain and ordinary meaning can be overcome only when the patentee has expressly defined a term or has expressly disavowed the full scope of the claim in the specification and the prosecution history. The Federal Circuit affirmed the construction of byte sequence feature because the specification twice described the byte sequence feature as useful and informative because it represents the machine code in an executable. The specification also clearly described that a byte sequence feature extraction is just one type of feature extraction and not a general term. The appellate court also noted that a provisional application had the same description for the term byte sequence feature. The Federal Circuit affirmed the construction of probabilistic model of normal computer system usage because it found the specification consistently described an implementation where the inventors ran ordinary programs to generate normal data for building an accurate and complete training model. The prosecution history also confirmed this construction. Columbia presented an academic paper referenced in the application to show that a model was built utilizing both attack-free and attack data, but the paper was insufficient to overcome the overwhelming evidence in the specification and the prosecution history. By contrast, the Federal circuit reversed the construction of anomalous for the 115 and 322 patents because, although claims must be interpreted consistently across all asserted patents where the multiple patents are derived from the same parent application and share terms, the four patents here (the 084 and 306 patents and the 115 and 322 patents) are from two different families and have only one common inventor for the two families of different inventions. Further, the two families of patents were filed years apart and resulted from separate patent applications. Therefore, the district court erred by relying on the 084 and 306 claim construction to construe the 115 and 322 claims.
4 Page 4 TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, No , February 5, 2016 (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 6,007,575 Prosecution history disclaimer requires the existence of a clear and unmistakable disclaimer that would have been evident to one skilled in the art. Proposed claim amendments that are ultimately not adopted at issuance would most likely not viewed as a disclaimer required for patentability by the court. Facts/Background: Samuels sued TriVascular for infringement of his 575 patent, which claims vascular stents that can be attached to a vascular wall by an inflatable and deflatable cuff without penetrating the wall. TriVascular petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR) and the PTAB found TriVascular had established two potential grounds for a reasonable likelihood of success. In its Institution Decision, the PTAB construed the term circumferential ridges to mean raised strip disposed circumferentially about the outer surface of the inflatable cuff. The IPR proceeded to trial, and the PTAB s final decision concluded that TriVascular had not met its burden of proof that the 575 claims were invalid. In its decision, the PTAB adopted Samuels construction of inflatable protrusions as protrusions that are themselves inflatable, i.e., expandable by being filled with fluids. The PTAB ruled that the prior art did not teach continuous circumferential ridges, as claimed in the 575 patent. Based on a general dictionary definition of ridge, the PTAB held the broadest reasonable meaning of circumferential ridges did not include discontinuous points on the surface of a stent. TriVascular appealed. Holding: Affirmed. TriVascular argued that the term circumferential ridges should be construed to mean an elevated part of the outer surface disposed about the inflatable cuff that can be either continuous or discontinuous. TriVascular referred to the Blue Ridge mountains in the Appalachian mountain range as support for its construction that ridge included discontinuous protrusions. The Federal Circuit found the argument unpersuasive because TriVascular did not explain why the PTAB should have adopted a topological definition of ridge over a general dictionary definition which is also consistent with the specification and other claim limitations. TriVascular invoked prosecution history disclaimer to show that construction of the term circumferential ridge should not be limited to continuous ridges. According to TriVascular, the prosecution history showed that the Examiner initially rejected the Samuels 575 patent claims because Samuels 851 was interpreted as having inflatable protrusions that form a circumferential ridge. Samuels responded by asserting that his 851 patent did not teach continuous. He added the word continuously to the claims, although the final issued claims did not include that term. TriVascular argued that these exchanges between Samuels and the PTO barred a construction limited to continuous circumferential ridges. However, the Federal Circuit noted that after an interview between Samuels and the Examiner, the continuously amendment was ultimately deleted from Samuels 575 while other claim amendments remained. Further, after the interview, the Examiner was convinced of the patentability of the claimed 575 invention without the word continuously. According to the Federal Circuit, it would be difficult to see how a skilled person in the art could interpret the proposed amendment as a disclaimer required for patentability. Therefore, TriVascular failed to meet its burden to prove the existence of a clear and unmistakable disclaimer that would have been evident to one skilled in the art. The Federal Circuit also reasoned that the Board rendered its Institution Decision based on its preliminary consideration of the matter without the benefit of a full record; and after further development of the record, if the Board is convinced its initial findings were wrong, it should and is free to change its view of the merits.
5 Page 5 TriReme Medical, LLC v. Angioscore, Inc., No , February 05, 2016 (precedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 8,080,026; 8,454,636; and 8,721,667 Estoppel by contract does not apply when an unlisted inventor, or his successor in interest, is not seeking to enforce any rights under the contract. Facts/Background: AngioScore sells a line of balloon catheters that are designed to open arterial blockages. On May 1, 2003, Dr. Lotan signed a Consulting Agreement with AngioScore. However, prior to the effective Agreement date, Dr. Lotan performed a single-day study testing the device. During the study, Dr. Lotan discovered a retention problem with the device, and he contributed to a memorandum summarizing the retention issue and presented potential solutions to the problem. Dr. Lotan further contributed to the invention in two follow-up meetings with AngioScore. However, none of the patents listed Dr. Lotan as an inventor. In 2014,TriReme obtained from Dr. Lotan an exclusive license to any and all legal and equitable rights he held in the AngioScore patents, although Dr. Lotan subsequently testified that he did not retain any financial interest in the patents. TriReme then sued AngioScore for correction of inventorship to add Dr. Lotan. AngioScore moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that TriReme lacked standing because Dr. Lotan had assigned all rights he may have had to the patents under the Consulting Agreement, and thus had nothing to subsequently license to TriReme. Specifically, AngioScore argued that it had acquired all of Dr. Lotan s interest pre-may 1, Section 9(a) provided that as part of Exhibit C, a list describing all inventions developments, improvements, and trade secrets which were made by Consultant prior to the date of this Agreement (collectively referred to as Prior Inventions ), that belong solely to Consultant or belong to Consultant jointly with another [i]f, in the course of providing the Services, Consultant incorporates into a Company product, process or machine or into any Invention a Prior Invention owned by Consultant [AngioScore is] hereby granted and shall have a non-exclusive license. Further, AngioScore argued that under Section 9(b) of the Agreement, all of Dr. Lotan s rights in his inventive contribution were assigned to AngioScore including the contribution before the effective date of the Agreement. Section 9(b) stipulated on the assignment of inventions. The district court granted AngioScore s motion, dismissing the complaint. TriReme appealed. Holding: Reversed and Remanded. The appellate court reasoned that Section 9(a) did not provide for inventions not listed as a Prior Inventions would not be retained. Further, 9(a) did not provide for inventions that are not listed are assigned. The Prior Inventions could potentially include independent inventions dating years before the effective Agreement date, and thus did not make sense. Therefore, 9(a), at best, only granted AngioScore a non-exclusive license if Dr. Lotan incorporated a Prior Invention into an AngioScore product during the term of the Agreement. This non-exclusive license would not prevent Dr. Lotan from later assigning his rights in the inventive contributions to TriReme. And the district court erred in finding Dr. Lotan had assigned his rights to AngioScore to the extent that it relied on Section 9(a). AngioScore then argued that because TriReme was Dr. Lotan s successor in interest, estoppel by contract binds TriReme to Dr. Lotan s representation under 9(a) that he had no prior invention relevant to AngioScore, and thus did not own any rights to purported development or improved of AngioScore s prototype. However, the Federal Circuit ruled that estoppel by contract did not apply because neither Dr. Lotan nor TriReme was seeking to enforce any rights under the contract. The Federal Circuit remanded the interpretation of 9(b) because of insufficient fact finding by the district court.
FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING AUGUST 25, 2017
P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 9, ISSUE 35 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING AUGUST 25, 2017 Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC, No. 2016-1047, 2016-1101 (August 25, 2017) (nonprecedential)
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Case: 14-1294 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 10/31/2014 NO. 2014-1294 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PURDUE PHARMA L.P., THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015
P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 7, ISSUE 24 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, (June 16, 2015) (en banc) (precedential) (11-1) Patent No. 6,155,840
More informationIN SEARCH OF A (NARROWER) MEANING
IN SEARCH OF A (NARROWER) MEANING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION NIKA ALDRICH OSB Intellectual Property Section August 3, 2016 Nika Aldrich Of Counsel IP Litigation 503-796-2494 Direct
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING May 25, 2018
P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 10, ISSUE 18 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING May 25, 2018 Artrip v. Ball Corp., Case No. 2018-1277 (May 23, 2018) (non-precedential) Patent Nos. 5,660,516,
More informationPaper 45 Tel: Entered: December 3, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 45 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: December 3, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TRIVASCULAR, INC., Petitioner, v. SHAUN L.W. SAMUELS,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RIDDELL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 16 C 4496 ) KRANOS CORPORATION d/b/a SCHUTT ) SPORTS, ) ) Defendant.
More informationPatent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August Patent in Suit
Patent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August 2005 Patent in Suit 1 Patent in Suit Claim 1 1. Building modules adapted to fit together for construction
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING MARCH 3, 2017
P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 9, ISSUE 10 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING MARCH 3, 2017 Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwell International A/S, No. 2016-1184, (February 27, 2017) (Nonprecedential)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION E2E PROCESSING, INC., Plaintiff, v. CABELA S INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:14-cv-36-JRG-RSP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
More informationPresented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney. AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016
Presented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016 2016 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP Overview Introduction to Proceedings Challenger
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING February 19, 2016
P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 8, ISSUE 8 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING February 19, 2016 Lismont v. Alexander Binzel Corporation, No. 2014-1846, (February 16, 2016) (Precedential) (3-0);
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 14-1311 Document: 33-1 Page: 1 Filed: 02/01/2016 (1 of 30) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED:
More informationAmerica Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings Wab Kadaba February 8, 2012 1 America Invents Act of 2011 Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16, 2011
More informationPost-Grant Patent Proceedings
Post-Grant Patent Proceedings The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 2011, established new post-grant proceedings available on or after September 16, 2012, for challenging the validity of
More informationChemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus
Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION TO CHEMICAL PATENT PRACTICE: SETTING THE STAGE FOR DISCUSSING STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING RISK OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND ENHANCING CHANCES OF INFRINGEMENT,
More informationPatent Resources Group. Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus
Patent Resources Group Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION II. USER GUIDE: Overview of America Invents Act Changes with Respect to Prior Art III. DRAFTING CHEMICAL CLAIMS AND SPECIFICATION
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit DAVID HALPERN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PERITEC BIOSCIENCES, LTD., PERITEC BIOSCIENCES, RAJESH K. KHOSLA,
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING 1/17/2014
P&S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL.6, ISSUE 2 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING 1/17/2014 Proveris Scientific Corporation v. Innovasystems, Inc., No. 2013-1166 (1/13/2014) (precedential) (3-0) Patent
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Trial Practice
Bill Meunier, Member Michael Newman, Member Peter Cuomo, Of Counsel July 18, 2016 Basics: Nomenclature "IPRs" = Inter partes review proceedings "PGRs" = Post-grant review proceedings "CBMs" = Post-grant
More informationThe Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape
The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), Shawn Hamidinia October 19, 2016
More informationNewly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense
September 16, 2011 Practice Groups: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Intellectual Property Litigation Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense On September
More informationBrief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period to
Brief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period 11-9-2017 to 12-13-2017 By Rick Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC This article presents a brief summary of relevant precedential points of law during
More informationPatent Portfolio Licensing
Patent Portfolio Licensing Circling the wagons while internally running a licensing program By: Nainesh Shah CAIL - 53rd Annual Conference on IP Law November 17, 2015, Plano, TX All information provided
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY In Phillips v. AWH, the En Banc Federal Circuit Refocuses Claim Construction on a Patent s Intrinsic Evidence July 29, 2005 In perhaps its most anticipated decision since Markman
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION EMG TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ETSY, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-00484-RWS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING APRIL 19, 2013
P&S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 5, ISSUE 14 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING APRIL 19, 2013 Capital Machine Company, Inc. v. Miller Veneers, Inc., No. 2012-1288 (April 15, 2013) (nonprecedential)
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Proceedings
Post-Grant Proceedings Are You Ready to Practice Before the New PTAB? Bryan K. Wheelock January 30, 2013 USPTO Post Grant Proceedings The AIA created three post grant proceedings for challenging the validity
More informationSupreme Court of the United States OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Argued February 26, 2014 Decided April 29, 2014
Supreme Court of the United States OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Argued February 26, 2014 Decided April 29, 2014 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 285 of
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Patent Reform
America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald Gibbs LeClairRyan December 2011 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com
More information2012 Winston & Strawn LLP
2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-1348-N ORDER
Case 3:14-cv-01348-N Document 95 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 3285 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LAKESOUTH HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Patent Reform
America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald F. Gibbs, Jr. LeClairRyan January 4 th 2012 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com
More informationThe Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S. Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D. 2017 1 Agenda U.S. Supreme Court news 2017 U.S. Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN VOCALTAG LTD. and SCR ENGINEERS LTD., v. Plaintiffs, AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V., OPINION & ORDER 13-cv-612-jdp Defendant. This is
More informationFor a patent to be valid, it needs to be useful, novel, nonobvious, and adequately
Limin Zheng Box 650 limin@boalthall.berkeley.edu CASE REPORT: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320 (2000) I. INTRODUCTION For a patent to be valid, it needs to be useful, novel, nonobvious,
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The University of Texas School of Law 20th ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION November 5-6, 2015 Four Seasons Hotel Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland
More informationCase 1:09-md SLR Document 273 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5592
Case 1:09-md-02118-SLR Document 273 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5592 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: CYCLOBENZAPRINE ) HYDROCHLORIDE EXTENDED ) Civ. No.
More informationCase 5:14-cv BLF Document 293 Filed 10/25/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case :-cv-0-blf Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FITNESS ANYWHERE LLC, Plaintiff, v. WOSS ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-blf
More informationT he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.
BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
More informationNew Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by
New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants. CONTENT GUARD HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE INVENTOR HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BED BATH & BEYOND INC., Defendant. C.A. No. 14-448-GMS I. INTRODUCTION MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Inventor
More informationPATENT LAW OF GEORGIA CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
PATENT LAW OF GEORGIA CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1 This Law regulates property and personal non-property relations formed in connection with the creation, legal protection and usage of the industrial
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES INNOVATIONS, LLC v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. Case No. 2:15-cv-1431-JRG-RSP
More informationIPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014
IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014 The Governing Statutes 35 U.S.C. 311(a) In General. Subject to the
More informationTECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC
TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3434 Andover Healthcare, Inc., lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner - Appellant, v. 3M Company, lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent - Appellee. Appeal
More informationFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CAYENNE MEDICAL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MEDSHAPE, INC., a Georgia corporation, ) KURT JACOBUS, KEN GALL, TIMOTHY ) NASH, AND
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1074 SCHWARZ PHARMA, INC. and SCHWARZ PHARMA AG, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PADDOCK LABORATORIES,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Case: 14-1294 Document: 205 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2016 NO. 2014-1294 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PURDUE PHARMA L.P., THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file
More informationAIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions
AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions Christopher Persaud, J.D., M.B.A. Patent Agent/Consultant Patent Possibilities Tyler McAllister, J.D. Attorney at Law
More informationPROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA)
I. Prior to AIA, there were two primary ways for a third party to invalidate a patent in the patent office: A. Interference under 35 U.S.C. 135 & 37 C.F.R. 41.202, which was extremely limited, as it required:
More informationPatent Resources Group Federal Circuit Law Course Syllabus
I. Novelty and Loss of Right to a Patent II. III. IV. A. Anticipation 1. Court Review of PTO Decisions 2. Claim Construction 3. Anticipation Shown Through Inherency 4. Single Reference Rule Incorporation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC, ZURU LTD., v. Plaintiffs, TELEBRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-00033-RWS
More informationCorrection of Patents
Correction of Patents Seema Mehta Kelly McKinney November 9, 2011 Overview: Three Options Certificate of Correction Reissue Reexamination in view of the America Invents Act (AIA) Certificate of Correction
More informationPart V: Derivation & Post Grant Review
Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Proposed Rules Part V: Derivation & Post Grant Review Presented By: Karl Renner, Sam Woodley & Irene Hudson Fish & Richardson AIA Webinar Series Date March
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Intellectual Ventures I, LLC; Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 16-10860-PBS Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States
More informationDesigning Around Valid U.S. Patents Course Syllabus
Chapter 1: COOKBOOK PROCEDURE AND BLUEPRINT FOR DESIGNING AROUND : AVOIDING LITERAL INFRINGEMENT Literal Infringement Generally Claim Construction Under Markman 1. Claim Interpretation Before Markman 2.
More informationThe New Post-AIA World
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The New Post-AIA World New Ways to Challenge a US Patent or Patent Application Erika Arner FICPI ABC 2013 Conference New Orleans, LA 0 Third Party Patent
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
More informationAmerica Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012
America Invents Act Implementing Rules September 2012 AIA Rules (Part 2) Post Grant Review Inter Partes Review Section 18 Proceedings Derivation Proceedings Practice before the PTAB 2 Post Grant Review
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BENEFICIAL INNOVATIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff, BLOCKDOT, INC.; CAREERBUILDER, LLC.; CNET NETWORKS, INC.; DIGG, INC.;
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 16-1004 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Filed: 08/15/2016 (1 of 9) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED:
More informationFive Winning Strategies for Crafting Claims in U.S. Patent Applications
Page 1 Five Winning Strategies for Crafting Claims in U.S. Patent Applications, is a registered patent attorney and chair of the Intellectual Property and Technology Practice Group at Bond, Schoeneck &
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HTC CORPORATION, et al., HTC CORPORATION, et al., KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., V. PLAINTIFF, KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., SAN JOSE DIVISION
More informationAmerica Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011
America Invents Act H.R. 1249 (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch www.bskb.com October 11-12, 2011 H.R. 1249 became law Sept. 16, 2011 - Overview first inventor
More informationPOST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER
POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD (PTAB) COMPOSITION DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS APJ 2 PATENT
More informationPaper 14 Tel: Entered: December 18, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: December 18, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BILLY GOAT INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. SCHILLER
More informationPatent Prosecution Update
Patent Prosecution Update March 2012 Contentious Proceedings at the USPTO Under the America Invents Act by Rebecca M. McNeill The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) makes significant changes to contentious
More informationDRAFT PATENT LAW OF GEORGIA CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
DRAFT PATENT LAW OF GEORGIA CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1 This Law regulates property and personal non-property relations formed in connection with the creation, legal protection and usage of
More informationHow patents work An introduction for law students
How patents work An introduction for law students 1 Learning goals The learning goals of this lecture are to understand: the different types of intellectual property rights available the role of the patent
More informationUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board PTAB Organization Statutory Members of the Board The Board is created by statute (35 U.S.C. 6). 35 U.S.C. 6(a) provides: There shall
More informationInter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check
Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check Wab Kadaba Chris Durkee January 8, 2014 2013 Kilpatrick Townsend Agenda I. IPR / CBM Overview II. Current IPR / CBM Filings III. Lessons
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 10 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit STONE BASKET INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. COOK MEDICAL LLC, Defendant-Appellant 2017-2330 Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationHow to Handle Complicated IPRs:
How to Handle Complicated IPRs: Obviousness Requirements in Recent CAFC Cases and Use of Experimental Data OCTOBER 2017 nixonvan.com District Court Lawsuit Statistics Number of New District Court Cases
More informationStrategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform
Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform October 11, 2011 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1249 (technical name of the bill) on June
More information2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World
2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR 54643-60 (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World ROY D. GROSS Associate St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford,
More informationInequitable Conduct Judicial Developments
Inequitable Conduct Judicial Developments Duke Patent Law Institute May 16, 2013 Presented by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared
More informationThe America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011
The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know September 28, 2011 Presented by John B. Pegram J. Peter Fasse 2 The America Invents Act (AIA) Enacted September 16, 2011 3 References: AIA = America Invents
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TMI PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROSEN ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS, L.P., Defendant-Appellee 2014-1553
More informationH. R. ll IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A BILL
G:\M\\MASSIE\MASSIE_0.XML TH CONGRESS D SESSION... (Original Signature of Member) H. R. ll To promote the leadership of the United States in global innovation by establishing a robust patent system that
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MAGNETAR TECHNOLOGIES CORP. and G&T CONVEYOR CO., v. Plaintiffs, SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC.,, et al., Defendants. C.A. No. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
More informationPreparing For The Obvious At The PTAB
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preparing For The Obvious At The PTAB Law360, New
More informationInter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger
Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger mofo.com Inter Partes Review Key distinctive features over inter partes reexamination: Limited Duration Limited Amendment by Patent
More informationUnited States District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALACRITECH, INC., Plaintiff, No. C 0-0 JSW 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. / ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner v. SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, Patent Owner Case No. Patent No. 6,125,371 PETITIONER S REQUEST
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION NEXUSCARD, INC. Plaintiff, v. BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY, Defendant. THE KROGER CO. Case No. 2:15-cv-961-JRG (Lead
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. This is an action in diversity by plaintiff Agency Solutions.Com.
0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY SOLLUTIONS.COM, LLC dba HEALTHCONNECT SYSTEMS, Plaintiff, v. : -CV-0 AWI GSA ORDER ON DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR AWARD OF
More informationJuly 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon
The AIA s Impact on NPE Patent Litigation Chris Marchese Mike Amon July 12, 2012 What is an NPE? Non Practicing Entity (aka patent troll ) Entity that does not make products Thus does not practice its
More informationMEMORANDUM ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. MGM WELL SERVICES, INC, Plaintiff. v. MEGA LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant. Feb. 10, 2006. Joseph Dean Lechtenberger, Howrey LLP, Houston, TX, for
More informationWhen Is An Invention. Nevertheless Nonobvious?
When Is An Invention That Was Obvious To Try Nevertheless Nonobvious? This article was originally published in Volume 23, Number 3 (March 2014) of The Federal Circuit Bar Journal by the Federal Circuit
More informationPrecedential Patent Case Decisions During July 2017
Precedential Patent Case Decisions During July 2017 By Rick Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC I. Introduction This paper abstracts what I believe to be the significant new points of law from the precedential
More informationintellectual property law CARR ideas on Declaring dependence What s in a name? Get Reddy Working for statutory damages Intellectual Property Law
ideas on intellectual property law in this issue year end 2004 Declaring dependence Dependent patent claims and the doctrine of equivalents What s in a name? Triagra loses battle for trademark rights Get
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:11-cv-02037-UA Document 13 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ) THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., ) PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS
More informationSPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB
SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 Spring 2017 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB On April 24, 2018, the United State Supreme
More information