American National Manufacturing Inc. v. Sleep Number Corporation, Appeal Nos. 2021-1321, -1323, -1379, -1382 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) In an appeal from inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Federal Circuit, among other issues, addressed whether PTAB erred in allowing patent owner Sleep Number to amend challenged claims by adding changes that did not directly respond to challenges by petitioner American National ...
Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., Appeal Nos. 2020-2073, -2142 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 24, 2021) Our Case of the Week this week focuses on the written description requirement when the patent claims a range. The Court addressed a circumstance where the application disclosed a number of values within a range, but did not disclose the range itself ...
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Appeal Nos 2021-1555, -1795 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) Our Case of the Week is ostensibly a case about whether a patent owner has standing to sue when that patent holder has granted an exclusive license. But the case turns on the application of collateral estoppel, when Uniloc, the patent owner, dismissed an appeal against Apple in an unrelated suit concerning the same facts. The case sounds like a cautionary tale about dismissing cases on appeal ...
University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2243 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review decision finding claims directed to light-based disinfecting methods to be obvious over the prior art. This case provides a helpful example of how negative claim limitations can affect an obviousness determination ...
Google LLC v. Hammond Development International, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-2218 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2022) In the only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit issued a decision concerning the effect of collateral estoppel in an inter partes review (IPR) based on a previous IPR decision ...
AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1729 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) Our Case of the Week again focuses on numerical values in claims. Last week we addressed a case involving whether there was written description support for a number in a claim, and we addressed a similar issue the week before. This week, our case focuses on the meaning and scope of a number in a claim ...
ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation, Appeal No. 2022-1092 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2022) In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential opinion this week, the Court considered issues arising from infringement litigation concerning appellee ADASA’s U.S. Patent No. 9,798,967 (the ’967 patent), which is directed to systems and methods for encoding radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags. Following a $26 ...
Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1001, -1002 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2022) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit discussed the corroboration requirement concerning the amount of evidence needed to successfully invalidate a patent as anticipated. Mosaic claimed that Ridge infringed Mosaic’s patent and trade dress for a money-clip wallet. Ridge countered that Mosaic infringed Ridge’s own patent for a money-clip wallet ...
Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1171 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2022) In the only precedential patent opinion issued by the Federal Circuit this week, the Court affirmed a district court’s summary judgment ruling that appellee Valve Corporation’s popular “Dota 2” and “Team Fortress 2” online videogames did not infringe Treehouse Avatar’s U.S. Patent No ...
Biogen International GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1933 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2021) For the second time in two weeks, our Case of the Week focuses on the written description requirement, in particular where the patent claims a range. In fact, all three precedential decisions issued this week concern issues relating to patents that claim numerical ranges. Below, we discuss two of those cases in our “Also This Week” section ...
Adapt Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-2106 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in both the majority opinion and dissent, provided an extended discussion of obviousness analyses. This discussion comes in the context of the Federal Circuit affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s finding, namely, that U.S. Patent Nos ...
The Federal Circuit issued numerous precedential opinions last week, two of which answered long simmering questions about inter partes reviews (IPRs). Below we discuss a case addressing whether admissions of prior art in the patent itself can be considered as prior art in an IPR. Our Case of the Week reversed Federal Circuit precedent concerning the scope of IPR Estoppel ...
In re: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and In re: Hyundai Motor America, Appeal Nos. 2022-108, -109 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022) In the most recent of multiple mandamus rulings issued by the Federal Circuit in relation to Western District of Texas Judge Alan D ...
BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonw. Scientific and Indus. Research Org., Appeal Nos. 2020-1415, -1416, -1919, -1920 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) Our Case of the Week, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, has something for everyone: questions of venue and statutory interpretation, invalidity and written descriptions, contracts and co-ownership of patents, and willfulness, injunctions, and royalty rates ...
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the circumstances under which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should raise a ground of unpatentability against substitute proposed claims in a motion to amend that a petitioner has not advanced or insufficiently developed ...
DBN Holding, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Appeal No. 2020-2342 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2022) The Federal Circuit issued only one precedential decision this week relating to a patent case. On this appeal—the fourth in the case—the issues were far removed from issues concerning patent law, and instead related to modifications of consent orders. Thus, we cover the case only in abbreviated form ...
Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., Appeal No. 2021-2013 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2022) Our Case of the Week focuses on the issue of claim construction, and, more specifically, the doctrine of claim differentiation. The patent at issue was directed to a “fuse end cap for providing an electrical connection between a fuse and an electrical conductor ...
Niazi Licensing Corporation v. St. Jude Medical SC, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1864 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2022) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent decision this week comes on appeal from a district court decision finding invalidity, granting summary judgment of no induced infringement, and imposing sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ...
Apple Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1760 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2022) In its only precedential patent case this week, the Federal Circuit addressed the extent to which a party exposes itself to personal jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment action when it accuses a party of patent infringement in that forum ...
Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2020-2167 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week turned on issues of claim construction. In particular, the issue was the effect of statements made by the applicant during the patent’s prosecution. The Court held that the district court erred in applying too narrow a construction, and reversed with a modified construction ...
Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-1759 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2022) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit Court addressed the third appeal from an underlying inter partes review proceeding in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision holding time-bar determinations as unreviewable. The Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction ...
Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1640, -1641 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2022) Our case of the week has a little bit for everyone, including lost profits, reasonable royalties, enhanced damages, claim construction, and more. However, the primary issue was application of the experimental use exception to the on-sale bar. The experimental use exception, which traces to City of Elizabeth v. Am. Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U.S ...
Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association, Appeal No. 2021-1989 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2022) Our Case of the Week this week is a declaratory judgment action brought against USAA. In a 27-page opinion, the Federal Circuit addressed three issues: subject matter jurisdiction for declaratory judgment actions under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the discretionary authority of courts to decline declaratory judgment jurisdiction, and venue for hearing such a case ...
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2022) In a return to the Federal Circuit, this case again sets precedent concerning Patent Office Director review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions ...
University of Massachusetts v. L’Oréal S.A., Appeal No. 2021-1969 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2022) In an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the Federal Circuit addressed (1) whether the district court relied on the proper claim construction to arrive at its indefiniteness conclusion; and (2) whether UMass was entitled to jurisdictional discovery before the district court granted a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction ...
