Infringement and royalty rate affirmed; dismissal of willful infringement claim reversed In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in part a district court's grant of summary judgment of infringement of a patent, finding that the claims were properly held to include measuring devices that either directly or indirectly compare two signals to determine the proper measurement. The court reversed-in part the district court's damages award. The […] Continue Reading →
Equitable inventorship correction claim must be resolved after factually-overlapping fraud claim The Federal Circuit issued a ruling Friday addressing the right to a jury trial in a case involving combined equitable (in the form of a correction of inventorship claim under 35 U.S.C. § 256 ) and legal (in the form of various tort claims) issues. The court held that the jury trial on the legal […] Continue Reading →
Attorney cannot directly appeal finding of inequitable conduct absent formal sanctions The Federal Circuit today addressed whether a prosecuting attorney who was found to have committed inequitable conduct during an infringement suit of the patent prosecuted may intervene to contest the finding. The court held that when an attorney is merely criticized by the court, not formally reprimanded, they have no standing to appeal. As a […] Continue Reading →
Proper successor shielded from patent infringement claim In General Mills, Inc. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that General Mills's claim for patent infringement against Kraft Foods was barred by a covenant not to sue that General Mills granted to Farley Candy Company, Kraft's predecessor in interest. In affirming the district court's […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court proposes revisions to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure In can what only be described as a busy day at the Supreme Court, the Court, in addition to rendering opinions in five cases (including two patent cases, see here and here), also proposed revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil, Criminal, Bankruptcy, and Appellate Procedure. While the Rules of Appellate Procedure only have a […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Puts the Brakes on District Court’s Claim Construction The Federal Circuit today issued a fairly routine claim construction decision, vacating part of the district court's claim construction and remanding. The Court also affirmed the district court's decision to deny Rule 11 sanctions (applying Ninth Circuit law). More details of the case after the jump. Intamin Ltd. sued Magnetar Technologies Corp. for infringement of […] Continue Reading →
Certificate of correction invalid, infringement case continues with original claims The Federal Circuit yesterday voided a certificate of correction which had been issued changing the scope of a patent's claims. Because the error corrected broadened the claims and was not the type of error that was "immediately apparent and leave no doubt as to what the mistake is," the certificate of correction was inappropriate. As […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit again deals with standing In yet another case, the Federal Circuit has dealt with whether a party asserting a patent infringement claim had title to the patent, and thus standing to bring the claim against the defendant. Here, once the standing issue was raised at the district court, the Plaintiff opted to fix the chain of title, voluntarily dismiss […] Continue Reading →
Today’s lesson from the Federal Circuit (that you should already know): Don’t miss deadlines In a case decided today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s dismissal of a party’s cancellation claim. The party seeking cancellation sought to do so by proving uncontrolled licensing of the trademark, but failed to file a notice of reliance with regard to the relevant testimony on the issue before the deadline. The TTAB denied […] Continue Reading →
Voluntary dismissal prevents award of attorney fees under § 285 In a recent case, the Federal Circuit found that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses its case under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) before an answer is served, the defendant is not a “prevailing party.” As a result, attorney fees under § 285 could not be awarded by the district court. More details of the case after the jump. RFR […] Continue Reading →