Allegedly false statements insufficient to warrant setting aside judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's decision denying a motion to set aside a judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) on charges of fraud. In an earlier litigation, a patent was invalidated under § 102(g) as previously invented by another. That decision was affirmed on appeal.More than a year later, new evidence […] Continue Reading →
Remand to state court resulting from declining supplemental jurisdiction unreviewable on appeal Addressing an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit today held that a district court's decision remanding a case to state court on the basis of declining supplemental jurisdiction was unreviewable. The court determined that this decision was within the class of remands described in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Because of this, review was barred […] Continue Reading →
Incorporation by reference did not incorporate necessary disclosure, priority chain broken Today, the Federal Circuit held a patent was anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by another patent earlier in the patent-in-suit's priority chain. The court held the district court erred in finding that the patent at issue was entitled to a priority date of the earlier-filed patent, leading to the district court's improper conclusion that […] Continue Reading →
Application of doctrine of equivalents to range limitation in claim does not vitiate the limitation In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's claim construction, but reversed its rulings regarding the sufficiency of notice of infringement and the applicability of the doctrine of equivalents. Regarding sufficiency of notice under 35 U.S.C. 287(a), the court held that while the patentee did not mark its products, its notice of […] Continue Reading →
Failure to discover title defect doesn’t make case exceptional; Rule 11 burden-shifting inapplicable In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit addressed when a case may be considered "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and therefore potentially warrant an award of attorney fees. The plaintiff purchased rights to a patent "as is" from a company going through bankruptcy. However, it was later revealed that the company did not have […] Continue Reading →
ITC’s claim construction reversed, revised construction leads to Section 337 violation In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission that a violation of § 337 of the 1930 Tarriff Act had not occurred. The court reversed the ITC's claim construction, and based on the revised claim construction, found the accused products infringed. This modified claim construction also resulted […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit denies rehearing en banc in DC prescription drug price case In a precedential order today, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in Biotechnology Industry Organization vs. District of Columbia. On August 3, the court held that the Prescription Drug Excessive Pricing Act of 2005 enacted by the District of Columbia City Council, which prohibited a patented drug from being […] Continue Reading →
Waiver of immunity in earlier case does not operate as waiver in later case involving same patent In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's decision that a state had not waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The state had intervened in an earlier, related action, but that action was subsequently dismissed for improper venue. The court held that while the state waived its immunity in the first suit […] Continue Reading →
Infringement finding and denial of permanent injunction in favor of ongoing royalty affirmed In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of a patent relating to hybrid engines used in motor vehicles. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of a permanent injunction and its award of an ongoing royalty on infringing vehicles, rejecting the argument that […] Continue Reading →
Patent prosecution malpractice claim properly heard in federal court and appealed to Federal Circuit In its second decision yesterday in a legal malpractice case, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that jurisdiction was proper over a legal malpractice claim on the basis that the malpractice claim involved a question of claim scope which presented a substantial question of patent law. The alleged malpractice involved prosecution of a […] Continue Reading →