Finding of inequitable conduct affirmed, Judge Rader expresses concern over resurgence of defense In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of inequitable conduct resulting from Rule 132 declarations that were used to overcome obviousness and anticipation rejections. The declarations used a difference in half-lives to distinguish the claimed composition over the prior art, however, it failed to indicate that the comparative half-lives were […] Continue Reading →
No claim preclusion unless second accused product essentially the same as product in first suit In a Tuesday decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court finding that a patent infringement suit was barred by claim preclusion. At issue was whether a claim for patent infringement was barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion when that claim could have been brought in a prior case. The patentee sued for infringement […] Continue Reading →
Claim construction and noninfringement affirmed on one patent, vacated on another In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of one patent and affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement of another. The determinations turned on the construction of one claim element in each patent.In the first patent, the court held that there was sufficient disclosure in the […] Continue Reading →
Claim term construed by construing different term in specification deleted from claim In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part a district court's summary judgment of noninfringement based on a revised claim construction of two claim terms. The court, in somewhat of a departure from its typical practice, also construed one additional term that appeared likely to be relevant on remand, but which did […] Continue Reading →
Hybrid vehicle patent not infringed; invalidity issues need not be reached on appeal from ITC 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 […] Continue Reading →
District court’s claim construction too narrow, but noninfringement finding affirmed anyway In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit held that a district court construed a claim limitation too narrowly. However, even under the broader construction, summary judgment was still appropriate, because there was no genuine issue of fact that the accused method still did not practice that element, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. […] Continue Reading →
Thursday at the Federal Circuit: In re Bilski oral arguments on scope of patentable subject matter This Thursday, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments en banc in In re Bilski (No. 2007-1130), a case that will help define the scope of patentable subject matter. Numerous amicus briefs have been filed in the case, and perhaps most interestingly, two of the amici, Bank of America and Regulatory DataCorp, have been granted […] Continue Reading →
Offer of judgment providing full recovery mooted case, preventing opinion regarding spoliation In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court's order denying a declaratory judgment plaintiff attorney fees, but including a scathing description of alleged spoliation by the patentee/DJ defendant. The Federal Circuit held that the district court's decision was an improper advisory opinion, and therefore vacated with instructions to dismiss.The patentee, before bringing […] Continue Reading →
Elements of infringement claim not jurisdictional; “sale” occurs at location of buyer and seller In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied the defendant's post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law. The defendant contended that because it shipped its allegedly infringing products f.o.b. from its place of […] Continue Reading →
Quality of investigation irrelevant to whether claims objectively baseless In a Wednesday decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision that a patent holder's communications with a competitor's customers that the competitor's products were infringing were not objectively baseless, and therefore could not support state law tort claims of unfair competition, intentional interference with contractual relations, interference with prospective economic advantage, and trade […] Continue Reading →