Analysis of patent litigation, PTAB practice, prosecution and pharma IP, written on the data behind LexDana.
Tagged intellectual property law · clear
CASE OF THE WEEK Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Technology Corporation , Appeal No. 2018-1581, -1582 (Fed. Cir. May 30, 2019) In the only precedential patent case this week, the Federal Circuit addressed whether a party who is not a patentee or…
LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS v. NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Before O’Malley , Reyna, Chen. Appeal from the Northern District of California. Summary : When a patent assignee does not acquire all substantial rights in a patent, Rule 19 compels courts…
Written by : Bridget A. Smith & Philip M. Nelson On May 22, 2019, a bipartisan committee of the U.S. Senate and House released a draft bill on § 101 reform, in a further attempt to reduce procedural obstacles for patent applicants. The draft bill…
An Illinois jury awarded football equipment manufacturer, Riddell, $5 million in patent damages against Kranos Corporation, doing business as Schutt Sports. The jury found that Schutt Sports’ Vengeance line of football helmets infringed…
QUEST INTEGRITY USA, LLC v. COKEBUSTERS USA INC. Before Dyk , Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: An affidavit should not be dismissed as a sham where: (1) the affidavit contradicts another…
EcoServices asserted two patents against Certified Aviation related to aircraft engine washing services. The jury found that Certified Aviation willfully infringed and awarded $1,949,600 in reasonable royalty damages. The Court ordered the parties to…
For many practitioners, it seems that change is the only certainty at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. And only five months into the year, change in 2019 has become more certain than ever. Late last year, the PTAB revamped its standard operating…
BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC Before Wallach , Moore, and Chen. Consolidated appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary : The PTAB correctly construed the…
AVX CORPORATION V. PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto . Appeal from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board. Summary: Appellants from an IPR decision to the Federal Circuit must have concrete claims of current or non-speculative…
NOVARTIS PHAMACEUTICALS CORP V. WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS Before Stoll , Plager, and Clevenger. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: When a method of using a prior art compound is claimed rather than the…
BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC V. ANDREI IANCU Before Moore, Reyna , and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A clear and unambiguous definition of a claim term is required to redefine the term to mean something other than its plain and…
Finisar alleged that Kaiam’s optoelectronic transceivers infringed 13 of Finisar’s patents. Optoelectronic transceivers provide electrical-to-optical conversion, and vice versa , used to communicate over fiber optic cables. The asserted patents…
