Willful infringement affirmed; injunction vacated in light of eBay The Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of willful infringement against a medical device manufacturer, but vacated a permanent injunction entered based on the old injunction standard to be reevaluated by the district court in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange. The infringer obtained opinions of counsel regarding infringement at two different […] Continue Reading →
Outdoor outfitters at odds over outerwear, order overturned Competing sporting goods retailers Bass Pro Shops and Cabela's faced off in the Federal Circuit. The parties were involved in an earlier patent infringement suit where Bass Pro Shops sued Cabela's for infringing its patent relating to a vest with a "pivotable seat member." The parties settled that suit, and the court entered an order […] Continue Reading →
Certificate of correction invalid, infringement case continues with original claims The Federal Circuit yesterday voided a certificate of correction which had been issued changing the scope of a patent's claims. Because the error corrected broadened the claims and was not the type of error that was "immediately apparent and leave no doubt as to what the mistake is," the certificate of correction was inappropriate. As […] Continue Reading →
Another post-MedImmune declaratory judgment jurisdiction decision The Federal Circuit addressed the requirements for declaratory judgment jurisdiction in a published decision for the second time this week. This time the parties are pharmaceutical companies, but the result is the same: the lower court, applying the old "reasonable apprehension of suit" standard, found no jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit, applying a post-MedImmune standard reverses, […] Continue Reading →
Patent Term Extensions: A Leap Frog of Sorts to Set Expiration Date In a case before the Federal Circuit, the court affirmed the district court's decision that a patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 156, may be applied to a patent subject to a terminal disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253. The Federal Circuit found that the language of § 156 is unambiguous […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit considers DJ jurisdiction post-MedImmune: Is an offer of license now enough? In a very interesting opinion, the Federal Circuit today addressed what is required to support jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment by a party under threat of a possible patent infringement lawsuit. This is the first substantive discussion of the issue since the Supreme Court's decision in MedImmune, where the Court held that a patent licensee […] Continue Reading →
Be careful what you wish for: broad claims found invalid In another case making a return trip to the Federal Circuit, the court held that under its broad claim construction decided in the first appeal, the asserted claims were invalid in two patents as not enabled and in two more as anticipated. In order to secure a finding of infringement, the patentee, Liebel-Flarsheim, argued for […] Continue Reading →
Obviousness: A Primer by the Federal Circuit In a case before the Federal Circuit, the district court's holding that a patent was valid and enforceable was rejected, not only because the Federal Circuit found the holding incorrect, but also because the holding reflected a serious misconception regarding the proper burden of proof each party bears in patent litigation. The Federal Circuit set […] Continue Reading →
Inequitable Conduct Found in False Statements and Deception In a case before the Federal Circuit, the District Court’s conclusion that Cantor’s patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct was affirmed. The matter before the Court involved a patent for a method and system for trading financial instruments. Specifically, Cantor developed a system that would automate the trading process and avoid the use of […] Continue Reading →
Equivalent not tangentially related to amendment, doctrine of equivalents unavailable In a case coming before the Federal Circuit for the second time, the court reversed a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because of prosecution history estoppel. The court rejected the patentee's argument that the amendment was only tangentially related to the equivalent, thus the Festo presumption of surrender of equivalents was not […] Continue Reading →