877 articles · page 45 of 74
INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES, INC v. IANCU Before Wallach, Chen , and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Summary : If a proper reply to a final Office Action is not filed within the three-month response…
INSPIRED DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. INSPIRED PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC Before Prost , Newman, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Summary : Alleging that a contract issue implicates patent infringement may not…
MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH v. ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Before: Newman, Lourie , and Dyk Summary : Where a request for continued…
HENNY PENNY CORPORATION v. FRYMASTER LLC Before Lourie , Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Summary : With respect to secondary considerations of nonobviousness, nexus may be satisfied by showing that objective…
CASE OF THE WEEK Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc. , Appeal No. 2018-2214 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2019) In a significant case in the field of design patents, the Federal Circuit clarified the scope of design patent infringement and held that a…
CURVER LUXEMBOURG, SARL v. HOME EXPRESSIONS INC. Before Chen , Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary : Claim language specifying the article of manufacture can limit the scope of a design…
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP. Before Prost, Bryson , and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Summary: The Federal Circuit applied collateral estoppel and thus avoided deciding…
Written by : Mark Kachner A Chicago jury previously awarded Kolcraft Enterprises more than $3 million in damages based on Artsana’s infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,376,993, related to infant play equipment. Because the jury awarded Kolcraft almost…
CASE OF THE WEEK Board of Regents of the University of Texas Sys. v. Boston Scientific Corp. , Appeal No. 2018-1700 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2019) This week’s case of the week involves issues relating to venue and state sovereignty. Specifically, the…
BOARD OF REGENTS v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. Before Prost, Reyna, and Stoll . Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary : The patent venue statute governs actions filed by a State as State sovereignty does not…
CASE OF THE WEEK BioDelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. , Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2019) Our case of the week this week focuses on Section 314(d)—the “no appeal” provision of…
ALLERGAN SALES, LLC v. SANDOZ, INC. Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach . Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary : A “wherein” clause can be limiting if it is material to patentability. Allergan…
