877 articles · page 66 of 74
In Exmark Manu facturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC. [2016-2197] (January 12, 2018), the Federal Circuit vacated summary judgment that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,987,863 is not anticipated or obvious; affirmed summary…
Federal Circuit Summary Before Wallach, Chen, and Stoll . Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Summary : Reexaminations of patents confirming validity are not dispositive of validity in district court. Furthermore, in…
Although non-precedential, Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1344 (Fed. Cir., January 4, 2018) provides a useful outline of Phillips-type claim construction and requires a close reading to see why the infringement finding by the…
Federal Circuit Summary Before Newman, O’Malley, and Reyna . Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary : A co-inventor did not transfer ownership interests in a patent under a California employment…
Federal Circuit Summary Before Dyk , Linn, and Hughes. Appeal from the Northern District of California. Summary : Claims directed to behavior-based virus scanning, as opposed to the traditional code-matching method, constituted a patent-eligible…
The big news yesterday was the Circuit’s en banc decision in Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom in which a majority of the court holds that, given the strong presumption in favor of judicial review, the Circuit should hear appeals of the issue of whether an IPR…
Federal Circuit Summary Before Dyk, Reyna, and Wallach . Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary : Extrinsic evidence can be used to find that an allegedly anticipating reference necessarily includes relevant claim limitations. E.I. DuPont…
Prosecutor’s Tool Box 2017 Patent prosecutors navigate complex USPTO rules and seemingly esoteric examinational requirements to procure patent rights. In doing so, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure…
TRAVEL SENTRY, INC., v. DAVID A. TROPP Before Lourie, O’Malley , and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Summary : For divided infringement under § 271(a), an accused infringer does not…
In Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., [2017-1475] (December 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law as to obviousness, the jury’s royalty rate, willfulness, treble…
The Federal Circuit recently faced a patent marking issue in Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., [2017-1475] (December 8, 2017). In that case, the patent owner Arctic Cat had previously licensed the patents in suit to Honda. The…
Federal Circuit Summary Before Dyk, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The bar in § 2(a) of the Lanham Act against registering immoral or scandalous trademarks is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech…
