Jury’s pre-KSR nonobviousness verdict reversed post-KSR In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of a judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of a patent were obvious after a jury verdict of no obviousness. KSR was decided after the jury's verdict but before the district court ruled on the defendant's motion for judgment […] Continue Reading →
Remittitur without new trial requires legal error, not error as a matter of law In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's reduction of the jury's damages award, remanding the case for a new trial on damages, and affirmed the jury's verdict of willful infringement and the district court's award of attorney fees under § 285. The district court held there was insufficient evidence as a […] Continue Reading →
ITC cannot enter limited exclusion order against non-parties 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 […] Continue Reading →
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 →
General disclosure in prior art not enabling for specific pharmaceutical compound’s use in treatment In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's holding that a prior art patent was not enabling and thus did not anticipate the patent-in-suit. Applying the In re Wands factors, the district court held undue experimentation would be required in order to produce the claimed invention based on the prior art's […] 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 →
Expert’s internally inconsistent testimony could not support jury’s infringement verdict In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law after a jury returned a verdict of infringement. The Federal Circuit held the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the plaintiffs' expert's opinions contradicted his factual testimony, and was thus incapable […] 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 →