Filewrapper®

Category: ITC


En banc Federal Circuit to address potential patent misuse issues in license practices
October 20, 2009
Post by Blog Staff
The Federal Circuit has agreed to hear en banc an interesting issue with regard to the potential for patent misuse in licensing. The case is Princo Corp. v. ITC. At issue is the patent pool related to the technology used for CD-R and CD-RW discs. The alleged infringer, Princo, admitted infringement before the ITC, but asserted the patents unenforceable due to patent misuse. The ITC originally rejected this de.......
Read More


Close but no cigar: ITC gets 4 of 5 claim constructions correct, but must reconsider 2 issues
June 15, 2009
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit addressed a variety of claim construction, infringement, and validity issues in an appeal from the International Trade Commission. After construing five disputed claim terms, the ITC held one of four representative products infringed, the remaining three did not infringe, and one claim invalid as anticipated. Both parties appealed.The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, r.......
Read More


ITC cannot enter limited exclusion order against non-parties
October 21, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit vacated a limited exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission in the most recent dispute between Qualcomm and Broadcom. The case involved alleged infringement of one of Broadcom's patents relating to chips for wireless communication, specifically directed toward power saving technology. Although Qualcomm was the only respondent in the proceedin.......
Read More


Inducement not shown when accused product can work in an infringing way but doesn't have to
October 07, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission's finding of noninfringement with respect to one patent but reversed and remanded on another. At issue was whether the defendant had imported chipsets that infringed five of the plaintiff's patents in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The action was dismissed with regard to two of the patents, as any action related .......
Read More


When exclusion order based on multiple patents, failure to appeal under each may render appeal moot
August 06, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed the United States International Trade Commission's finding of infringement and validity. The claims were brought under three patents that all claimed priority to a common parent application, and thus would ordinarily all expire on the same day. However, one of the three patents was subject to a 108 day term extension under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b). The f.......
Read More


Hybrid vehicle patent not infringed; invalidity issues need not be reached on appeal from ITC
May 12, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In an appeal from the International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission's determination of noninfringement of a patent. The court, however, did not consider the ITC's finding of nonenablement on appeal. While in the context of a district court case a counterclaim for invalidity is not mooted by a finding of noninfringement, the court held that because invalidity can only be rai.......
Read More


271(e) safe harbor applies to both product and method claims in ITC proceedings
March 19, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a ruling today, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) concerning the application of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 and 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) to imported products and products imported produced via a patented process. The main issue before the court was whether the safe harbor against infringement provided by § 271(e) applies in proceedings under §.......
Read More


ITC's claim construction reversed, revised construction leads to Section 337 violation
November 01, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission that a violation of § 337 of the 1930 Tarriff Act had not occurred. The court reversed the ITC's claim construction, and based on the revised claim construction, found the accused products infringed. This modified claim construction also resulted in the plaintiff's U.S. product falling wit.......
Read More


View all Filewrapper® Posts

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.