Claim Preclusion Requires Analysis that Claims in Newly Asserted Patents are Patently Indistinct from Claims in Previously Adjudicated Patents
Claim Elements Taught by Prior Art for Purposes of Novelty and Obviousness are not Necessarily 'Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional' Under §101
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether a patentee may recover foreign lost profits resulting from infringement of a United States patent.
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.
The Federal Circuit ruled that basing a reasonable royalty calculation on the “smallest salable unit” does not obviate the need to apportion damages to the patented contribution within that unit.
Federal Circuit Vacates Noninfringement Decision Finding a Genuine Dispute as to Divided Infringement
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Holds Sovereign Immunity No Defense to IPR Petition Brought by Accused Infringer
On Jan. 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its significant en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom. In that decision, the Federal Circuit held that the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. §315(b) is reviewable on appeal, thus overturning a prior panel decision and opening the door for parties to challenge how the USPTO has interpreted and applied that statutory provision.
This article examines the impact of TC Heartland with a focus on recent Federal Circuit decisions applying TC Heartland and further clarifying the scope of where patent cases may be filed.
There Was No Clear Majority at Oral Argument Signaling the Death of Inter Partes Review
November 27 was supposed to be the big Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court. After two hours of questioning, it seemed more like a big bust.
Federal Circuit Affirms Finding That Rembrandt's Patent Is Not Infringed by Apple's Accused Products
District Court Transfers Case after Federal Circuit Ordered It to Reconsider Party's Venue Objections In Light of TC HeartlandJanuary 01, 2018Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Hui Li
On Nov. 13, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Mayer, and Judge Chen issued a unanimous decision in Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp. On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed a grant of judgment as a matter of law by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin that the plaintiff failed to prove its infringement case under §§35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 271(f)(1). The panel affirmed the district court's denial for a new trial on damages and infringement, and reaffirmed its prior holdings on enablement, licensing, and active inducement issues.
Written opinions of counsel are gaining renewed interest as a valuable tool to limit liability for willful patent infringement. A patent opinion that is competently written by a registered patent attorney sets forth the factual and legal basis for finding a patent not infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable. However, to be effective, the timing of the rendered patent opinion may be critical.
