Posts Tagged: "Federal Circuit Review"

Elbit’s expert argued that the asserted claims were obvious because the two-step and three-step methods are “mathematically equivalent” in that the three-step method simply reorders steps employed in the prior art without producing a new or unexpected result. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that Thales’s expert sufficiently explained the differences between the two-step and three-step methods. The panel also agreed with the Board that Elbit’s expert’s testimony was “unsupported” and not entitled to weight because he failed to account for or address the relative angular rate signal limitation in claim 3 anywhere in his opinion.

Despite its ultimate conclusion, the Court observed that Nordt failed to “persuasively or precisely” articulate to the Board “what structural limitation is imparted” by the “injection molded” language. The Federal Circuit explained that had Nordt better articulated its arguments to the Board it may well have succeeded at the Board. Nevertheless, Nordt’s failure to identify that structure did not affect the panel’s conclusion, as the structural nature of “injection molded” can be gleaned from the plain claim language in conjunction with the specification.

Turning to the injunction, Infineon was enjoined from undertaking certain activities concerning products in the Exclusive Field that practice the licensed patents. The Court vacated this provision because it lacks the specificity required by FRCP 65(d). The Court found that this sentence of the injunction “is, in essence, an injunction prohibiting infringing acts—but without reference to any particular, adjudicated infringing product,” and “[i]ndeed, no product has yet been adjudicated.”

The Federal Circuit reiterated that the on-sale bar does not exempt commercial agreements between a patentee and its supplier or distributor. It is the commercial character of the transaction that is more relevant than the parties involved when assessing whether there was a commercial offer for sale.

The Federal Circuit found that Actelion was required to make an express request to commence early national stage examination. Actelion’s statement “earnestly soliciting early examination,” which made no reference to § 371(f), the PCT, or the national stage, combined with failure to check the box expressly requesting early examination, was an “inconsistent or ambivalent request.” While Actelion was not required to check any boxes, it was still required to make its intentions clear. Thus, the district court did not err in affirming the PTO’s finding that Actelion failed to make an express request for early examination. The Federal Circuit also found no error in the PTO’s determination that the national stage commenced on January 17, 2012, the next workday after a 30-month date that fell on a federal holiday.

The Federal circuit heard the case on AbbVie Inc. v. MedImmune Ltd. AbbVie and MedImmune entered a development and licensing agreement in 1995. The agreement stemmed from a research collaboration between the parties, resulting in the antibody adalimumab, the active ingredient in Humira… In general, parties may not seek a declaratory judgment to litigate one issue in a dispute that must await adjudication of other issues for complete resolution of the dispute. In limited circumstances, courts may permit this type of action where litigation is pending that would resolve the remaining questions.

While the Court affirmed several of the Board’s validity findings, it reversed the determination that the ’455 PCT qualifies as prior art. At issue was the extent to which the ‘817 application included the disclosures of Severinsky, so that challenged claims would antedate the ‘455 PCT. Paice argued that Severinsky was incorporated into the ‘817 application and was not prior art. Therefore, certain challenged claims could rely on Severinsky for the ‘817 priority date, which was earlier than the ’455 PCT.

A disclaimer of challenged patent claims before an IPR is instituted may result in a final adverse judgment against the patent owner, triggering estoppel provisions that preclude the assertion of other claims that are not patentably distinct from those disclaimed… Judge Newman dissented, explaining that because no trial occurred, the Board had no authority to issue an adverse judgment.

To fall within the safe-harbor protection against obviousness-type double patenting, a patent application must be properly designated as a divisional application before the patent issues. Attempts to retroactively re-designation a CIP application as a divisional does not bring the patent granted from that application within the protection of the safe-harbor, whether or not any benefit was gained from the initial CIP designation.

In an appeal from an IPR in which the Board upheld the patentability of several patent claims, the Federal Circuit vacated the decision and remanded to the Board with instructions to consider the patentability of certain dependent claims… The patentability of independent Claims 1 and 17 was the sole basis for the Board’s decision in this appeal from the ’592 IPR; the Board did not separately address the dependent challenged claims. The holding of unpatentability of claims 1 and 17 in the ’728 IPR, and the affirmance by the Federal Circuit, abrogated the basis for the Board’s decision that the claims in the ’592 IPR were patentable.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of LG‘s motion for summary judgment that various claims of Core’s patents were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under Section 101. The Court also affirmed the district court’s denial of LG’s motions for judgment as a matter of law that the claims were anticipated and not infringed… The concept of summarizing information can be patent eligible (not abstract) when specifically applied to improving the efficiency of the electronic device, as in a “particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.”

This appeal revolves around the jury verdict form. The form included a stop instruction, which told the jury not to consider invalidity defenses unless first finding infringement. Globus failed to object to the instruction prior to the jury’s deliberations. Resubmission to the jury was not an error.

Exmark Manufacturing was awarded $24 million in compensatory damages after a jury found that Briggs and Stratton infringed Exmark’s patent on a lawn mower with improved flow control baffles. The award was doubled by the court, after a finding that Briggs and Stratton’s infringement was willful. On appeal, Briggs challenged six holdings: (1) summary judgment that claim 1 was not anticipated or obvious; (2) denial of summary judgment that claim 1 is indefinite; (3) denial of a new trial on damages; (4) evidentiary rulings related to damages; (5) denial of a new trial on willfulness; and, (6) denial of Brigg’s laches defense. The Federal Circuit vacated findings of willfulness and the underlying damages award, remanding to the trial court.

In 2011, Advanced Video filed suit against HTC for patent infringement in the Southern District of New York. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing, finding that Advanced Video did not have an ownership interest in the patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Judge Newman dissented, arguing that Advanced Video had full ownership of the ?788 Patent and standing to sue for infringement. She found that the Employment Agreement, including the “will assign,” trust and quitclaim provisions, demonstrated a mutual intent and understanding that any inventions created during Ms. Hsiun’s employment at Infochips would be owned by Infochips.

According to the Federal Circuit, The claims simply do not simply recite an abstract result. Because the claims recite specific steps that accomplish a desired result, the the claims were found to be directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, not an abstract concept of computer security. Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit said the jury verdict of infringement relative to the ’968 patent should be set aside because there is no evidence that the accused product includes a feature claimed in the patent. Several errors were identified with respect to the royalty calculation of the ‘844 patent, which the Federal Circuit remanded to the trial court for further consideration. For the ’731 and ’633 patents, Finjan’s expert did apportion the revenues comprising the royalty base between infringing and non-infringing functionality of Proxy SG. The jury’s damages awards for infringement of these two patents were affirmed.