Ninth Circuit: Sufficient evidence of fraud to defeat summary judgment on Walker Process claim In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit addressed the antitrust implications of so-called "reverse payments" between brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies. A health care provider brought suit against the two companies, alleging their agreement to delay the introduction of a generic pharmaceutical (which involved payment to the generic manufacturer of $4.5 million per month) […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit grants mandamus ordering transfer of case from Eastern District of Texas In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit granted a petition for a writ of mandamus after a district court denied transfer of the case. The defendants/petitioners had been denied transfer of a patent case from the Eastern District of Texas (a venue perceived to be plaintiff-friendly in patent cases) to the Southern District of Ohio, […] Continue Reading →
Integrating infringing component into larger product does not escape contributory infringement In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment of obviousness, but vacated and remanded the summary judgment of no contributory or inducing infringement of two other patents in suit related to recordable optical disk drive technology. The court relied on copyright cases applying the concept of secondary liability […] Continue Reading →
Patent lawyer without expertise in relevant field cannot testify on infringement, invalidity The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court's post-verdict grant of judgment as a matter of law of nonobviousness, applying the KSR obviousness standard and addressing the requirements for expert testimony for legal conclusions of obviousness. The Federal Circuit clearly set forth that patent attorneys without specific skill and training in the area of the […] Continue Reading →
Failure to disclose patents to SSO results in unenforceabilty against products using standard In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part a district court decision that a patentee had breached a duty to disclose relevant video-compression technology patents while participating in a joint video team standards-setting organization (SSO). The Federal Circuit, however, reversed in part the district court decision finding the patents unenforceable against the world, instead holding […] Continue Reading →
Prior art disclosure of compound does not anticipate substantially separated enantiomer In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's determination, after a bench trial, that the asserted claim of a patent had not been proven anticipated or obvious. The district court held that while the prior art showed the chemical structure of the claimed compound, it did not describe the separation of the […] Continue Reading →
Continuation rules appeal decided; continuation limit invalid; RCE limit and ESD requirements valid This morning the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Tafas v. Doll (formerly Tafas v. Dudas), the case addressing the validity of the USPTO's claim and continuation rules. The court holds all of the rules at issue are procedural rather than substantive, reversing the district court on this issue. In spite of this conclusion, the […] Continue Reading →
Reliance on initial expert for rebuttal sufficient to defeat summary judgment In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit reversed grants of summary judgment in favor of both parties. The defendant was granted summary judgment of noninfringement, and the plaintiff (and counterclaim defendant) was granted summary judgment on the grounds of no marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287. Both parties appealed. The Federal Circuit determined there was […] Continue Reading →
Explanation of prior art element in dependent claim insufficient to confer inventor status In a decision Thursday, the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment of dismissal for lack of standing by the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The district court held that one of the defendant's employees was a coinventor of the patent-in-suit, and because he had not joined as a plaintiff, the plaintiffs did […] Continue Reading →
Claim that infringing product was defendant’s “innovation” cannot support section 43(a) claim In a decision last month, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law from a jury award of $8,054,579 under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The plaintiff held a patent on a type of basketball, and the defendant (against whom summary judgment of infringement was granted) advertised […] Continue Reading →