Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.
After the most recent decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. , patent law may need a new word [1] to describe the specific consequences of silence in the face of a duty to disclose patents while participating in a standards-setting organization ("SSO"). Such silence by the patent holder in Qualcomm -along with some genuinely shocking litigation shenanigans-resulted in the Federal Circuit...
Read More...
In re Bernard L. Bilski
The Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision in In re Bernard L. Bilski late last week, making clear that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. While theoretically leaving alive the prospect of valid business method patents, the Court made clear that unless a process claim is "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" or "transforms a particular article into a...
Read More...
Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. International Game Technology
In Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. International Game Technology , the accused infringer thought they'd hit the jackpot by convincing the district court to hold a patent invalid due to "Improper Revival" during patent prosecution. The district court paid out on the defense and granted summary judgment on the defendant's behalf. On appeal, the Federal Circuit invoked house rules and...
Read More...
Star Scientific Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Death of lower court victories can be a side effect of appeals, so perhaps the accused patent infringer in Star Scientific Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. shouldn't have inhaled their district court win. RJR, the accused infringer, obtained an order for summary judgment in the district court based on the inequitable conduct of patent holder Star Scientific. On appeal, the Federal Circuit made...
Read More...
Jang v. Boston Scientific
Savvy travelers in the land of patent litigation occasionally use the stipulated judgment short-cut to speedy appellate review of the district court's claim construction. In order to have a final, appealable judgment, litigants on this usually expedited route agree that the accused products would or would not infringe (as the case may be) in light of the district court's claim construction...
Read More...
Proveris Scientific Corporation v. InnovaSystems, Inc.
In Proveris Scientific Corporation v. InnovaSystems, Inc. , the defendant sought to invoke the so called "Safe Harbor" provisions of 35 U.S.C §271(e) in order to avoid liability for patent infringement. The patent at issue covered a system and apparatus that allowed those seeking FDA approval to provide necessary data demonstrating the efficiency and effectiveness of drug delivery for drugs...
Read More...
Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp.
Chopping block, that is, since the patent holder in Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp. had its verdict for willful patent infringement overturned and its $77 million damage award eliminated. Changes in controlling case law in the time between verdict and appeal contributed to the reversal; but bad expert testimony and a skimpy record on appeal also helped turn the district court's verdict into...
Read More...
Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc.
Look at that! Look at that! Prong Two just stepped in on the mat-or, perhaps more precisely, it showed up in the Federal Circuit's decision in Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc. Specifically, in Cat Tech, the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the changes the Supreme Court decision in MedImmune v. Genentech made to the first prong of the test for declaratory judgment jurisdiction in actions brought...
Read More...
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
Life's a little less good for patent holder LG Electronics ("LGE") since the Supreme Court determined in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. that P.E.D - the patent exhaustion doctrine - terminally infected its patent infringement claims. The doctrine provides that a patent holder can only obtain one recovery for an infringement. Once that recovery has been made-by way of a...
Read More...
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
In Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp , the Federal Circuit dishes up a tasty decision on claim preclusion that certainly shouldn't ruin a patent holder's appetite for further litigation. Acumed makes clear that a patent holder's claims against an infringer for multiple versions of a product do not need to be brought in a single serving unless the allegedly infringing devices are "essentially...
Read More...
LiteCubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc.
We'll give it to you neat. LiteCubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc . holds that section 271 of the patent statute does not contain that requirement for the federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, section 271 states a necessary element of a claim for patent infringement. According to the Federal Circuit's top shelf opinion, a complaint which sufficiently pleads a cause...
Read More...
O2 Micro International, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology, Co., Ltd.
What's the amount of time necessary to separate a patent holder from an infringement verdict? In O2 Micro International, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology, Co., Ltd. , 32 micro seconds was enough - that is, when combined with district court errors regarding claim construction and equivalency. The Federal Circuit's call? The infringement verdict is vacated and the ball goes back to the district...
Read More...
Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.
Shocking? The Federal Circuit's opinion in Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp. doesn't necessarily reach that amplitude. Yet the decision does contain some high-wattage lessons for patent holders, as well as for those seeking to short-circuit the letter (or spirit) of existing confidentiality agreements. Let's just say this one's a live-wire. Agrizap held patent rights to certain rodent...
Read More...
Erico International Corp. v. Vutec Corp. & Wiremaid Products and Doc’s Marketing Corporation
Consider this a heads up to patent holders thinking of taking a fly at preliminary injunctive relief. In Erico International Corp. v. Vutec Corp. & Wiremaid Products, a split panel of the Federal Circuit seemed to lower the standard of proof necessary to demonstrate invalidity at that procedural juncture. The result? Efforts intended as a warm-up act in the litigation may prematurely move the question...
Read More...
TiVo v. EchoStar
You might want to fast forward through more than the commercials on this one-all the best action is in the finale. In TiVo v. Echostar the Federal Circuit engages in page after page of dense claim construction only to deliver the heart of the opinion in a single, concluding paragraph. There, it upheld the jury's entire damage award of $73 million even though it had reversed the jury's determination...
Read More...
More Posts
Next page »