High materiality without explanation for nondisclosure leads to inference of intent to deceive In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of inequitable conduct for one patent but reversed on a second, affirmed a finding of no invalidity of the second patent, but vacated the finding of infringement after modifying the district court's claim construction of a claim term. The court also reversed the […] Continue Reading →
Anticipation no longer the epitome of obviousness? Claims can be anticipated but nonobvious The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court's finding of non-willful infringement for one product, reversed its claim construction and related finding of noninfringement of a second product, and vacated its judgment as a matter of law on the issue of anticipation. The district court, at the charge conference near the end of the jury […] Continue Reading →
Inducement not shown when accused product can work in an infringing way but doesn’t have to 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 […] Continue Reading →
Advice of counsel evidence still relevant to intent to induce infringement In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury's finding of infringement of two patents and the related injunction, but reversed the district court's claim construction and the concomitant finding of infringement regarding a third patent. The court affirmed the district court's injunction despite the fact that the patentee licensed, rather than manufactured, the […] Continue Reading →
Inventor testimony regarding intent during patent prosecution irrelevant to claim construction In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit vacated a stipulated judgment of noninfringement on claim construction grounds. The construction issue dealt with the significance of a limitation that applied to an "at least one" element. Specifically, the relevant claim required "at least one condylar element," where "the condylar element" had certain features. The district court […] Continue Reading →
Patent claims not at issue at trial can’t be found invalid, even if mentioned in complaint In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed much of a district court's finding of willful infringement of a plaintiff's patents, tortious interference with the plaintiff's business relationships, and invalidity of the defendant's patents. Regarding the willful infringement, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court had improperly interpreted the claims of the plaintiff's patents-in-suit […] Continue Reading →
Efforts to terminate infringement after notice of patent doesn’t avoid damages In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of a patent on the basis of claim construction. Specifically, the district court had improperly imported limitations from nonasserted claims into the asserted claims, resulting in an unduly narrow claim construction. The court also vacated the district court's […] Continue Reading →
Irreparable harm to exclusive licensee cannot support injunction; willfulness vacated post-Seagate In a decision Monday, the Federal Circuit addressed a range of issues and ultimately affirmed a district court's denial of injunctive relief and, in light of the intervening Seagate decision, vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration regarding willfulness. The court also affirmed the district court's finding of no invalidity and the infringement of some […] Continue Reading →
Arguments made distinguishing prior art spell doom for broader claim construction In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's claim construction and related grant of summary judgment of non-infringement.The court affirmed the construction in part because the plaintiff's interpretation of the claim elements was at odds with the plaintiff's stance during the prosecution history. Specifically, the patentee added the element in question […] Continue Reading →
Consent judgment with no explanation of how claim construction affected noninfringement vacated In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit vacated a consent judgment entered by a district court and remanded the case for clarification. The district court entered a consent judgment, stipulated by the parties, stating the defendants' products did not infringe under the district court's claim construction of several terms, but that the plaintiff could still […] Continue Reading →