Ronald Chandler v. Phoenix Services LLC, Appeal No. 2020-1848 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed the ongoing question of its subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving patents, but that do not concern allegations of infringement or invalidity ...
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Appeal Nos. 2020-1475, -1605 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal from the International Trade Commission affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s finding that 10X’s products violated the Tariff Act by infringing multiple patents and that they did not infringe another ...
In re: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Appeal Nos. 2021-139, -140 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit granted mandamus petitions filed by Samsung and LG Electronics, directing that patent cases pending against them in the Western District of Texas be transferred to the Northern District of California ...
Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2020-1289, -1290 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB decision in consolidated IPRs that two patents were unpatentable as obvious. The Court held that the Board erred in reaching its conclusions both in terms of what the prior art taught and in application of objective indicia of nonobviousness ...
Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., Appeal Nos. 2020-1589, et al. (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2021) In the only precedential patent decision issued by the Federal Circuit this week, the Court addressed again the due process and statutory right of parties in IPR proceedings to have notice and an opportunity to be heard on theories that the PTAB may rely on in rendering its decisions ...
GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1976, -2023 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2021) Our Case of the Week this week is a re-write of our Case of the Week on October 5, 2020. The case involves a drug that could be used for multiple therapeutic purposes ...
PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Appeal Nos. 2020-1543, -1553, -1554 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment on the pleadings that the claims of three patents owned by appellant PersonalWeb were invalid as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ...
Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Co., Appeal Nos. 2020-1747, -1748, -1750 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, Appeal Nos. 2020-1876, -1877, -1878 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) In this week’s Cases of the Week, the Federal Circuit reviewed ...
Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1799 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2021) In an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Belcher”) engaged in inequitable conduct by withholding prior art from the Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) during the prosecution of Belcher’s patent ...
In re: MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-146 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2021) In its only precedential patent case this week, the Federal Circuit denied a mandamus petition relating to the PTAB’s institution of inter partes reviews of MaxPower’s patents. The case touches on, but does not completely resolve, whether the PTAB can institute inter partes reviews where the parties have agreed to arbitrate those disputes ...
Omega Patents, LLC, v. CalAmp Corp., Appeal Nos. 2020-1793, -1794, (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2021) In its only precedential patent case this week, the Federal Circuit sent a case back for a third trial on the issue of damages. This appeal comes after the second jury trial, in which Omega accused CalAmp of infringing claims of four of its patents. In the prior appeal and the instant appeal, the Court affirmed on the underlying issues of infringement and validity ...
In re: Juniper Networks, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-160 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit issued its fifth writ of mandamus this year ordering transfer of a patent case out of the Western District of Texas courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Alan D. Albright. (Our write-up of the recent precedential decision in In re Samsung is available here ...
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1070 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2022) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s bench trial finding that claims of a pharmaceutical patent were supported by adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ...
Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1963 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2022) In its only precedential patent case this week, the Federal Circuit disposed of an appeal, holding that the district court’s claim construction was wrong. In the appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Federal Circuit addressed the meaning of the term “magazine catch bar” in the asserted claims ...
Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1828, -1867 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021) The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions this week—both arising from IPRs filed by Intel against patents owned by Qualcomm. In our Case of the Week, we focus on the first of those cases. In our Also This Week section below, we cover the second case ...
Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Appeal No. 2021-1638 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2021) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed whether a forum selection clause in an NDA may prohibit a party from petitioning for an inter partes review with the PTAB. Kannuu filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the district court to compel Samsung to withdraw their petitions. The district court denied the motion, and Kannuu appealed ...
In re: Vivint, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1992 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2021) In an appeal from the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit addressed whether a party may challenge the validity of an issued patent by ex parte reexamination when the challenger has repeatedly tried to use inter partes review (“IPR”) to forward the same argument. The Federal Circuit held that, when applying 35 U.S.C ...
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1683, -1763, -1764, 1827 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2021) Our Case of the Week reinforces a developing body of law concerning standing to appeal from an adverse PTAB decision in an IPR. This is the second such decision arising from a global settlement between Apple and Qualcomm this year. We wrote about the first case, in April this year, here ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
