Filewrapper

Comparison of Commercial Products not the vehicle to analyze equivalence

In a second appearance before the Federal Circuit, AquaTex again appealed a decision of the District Court that Techniche Solutions’ Cooling Apparel did not infringe their U.S. Patent No. 6,371,977 for a protective multi-layered liquid retaining composition. The Federal Circuit had previously affirmed the lower court’s finding of no literal infringement while remanding the case […]

Continue Reading →

Today’s lesson from the Federal Circuit (that you should already know): Don’t miss deadlines

In a case decided today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s dismissal of a party’s cancellation claim. The party seeking cancellation sought to do so by proving uncontrolled licensing of the trademark, but failed to file a notice of reliance with regard to the relevant testimony on the issue before the deadline. The TTAB denied […]

Continue Reading →

Voluntary dismissal prevents award of attorney fees under § 285

In a recent case, the Federal Circuit found that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses its case under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) before an answer is served, the defendant is not a “prevailing party.” As a result, attorney fees under § 285 could not be awarded by the district court. More details of the case after the jump. RFR […]

Continue Reading →

Back to the Future: trade dress found functional in 1985 still functional in 2007

The Federal Circuit once again rejected Bose Corporation's application to register a speaker design as a trademark. The court had earlier affirmed a finding of functionality by the USPTO, and because there were no changed circumstances since that decision, the court once again affirmed the same finding based on the doctrine of res judicata (claim […]

Continue Reading →

No Crying Over Spilled Milk – Held to Claim Construction During Prosecution

Nouri Hakim appealed the decisions of the District Court of Western Louisiana granting Cannon Avent Group’s motion for summary judgment that Avent did not infringe one of Hakim’s patents (“the ‘931 patent“) and finding another of Hakim’s patents invalid (“the ‘620 patent“). The patents-in-suit involved the art of non-spill drinking cups and the apparatus in […]

Continue Reading →

Government contractor entitled to patent infringement immunity

The Federal Circuit ruled today that a contractor working for the government was entitled to immunity from a patent infringement suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). The contractor was hired to clean up various sites contaminated by hazardous waste, and the terms of the contract required the contractor to use a particular method to perform […]

Continue Reading →

Don’t change horses in midstream: Patentee held to claim construction position taken at lower court

The Federal Circuit ruled today that a patentee could not argue a different claim construction than that argued before the district court. Because of this, the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement against the patent holder. Also, the court held that the patent holder did have standing to bring the […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit accepts rare interlocutory claim construction appeal

Today the Federal Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal from a district court relating to patent claim construction. Because of the rarity of such a decision by the Federal Circuit, the court felt compelled to explain, in a precedential order, why it was accepting the order, and so members of the bar wouldn’t get their hopes […]

Continue Reading →

Dippin’ Dots: brought to you by inequitable conduct, but not an antitrust violation

What do Dippin' Dots, the little beads of ice cream sold at fairs, stadiums, and malls, have to do with patent and antitrust law? For the Federal Circuit, they presented the "close case" where a patent holder can be found to have engaged in inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent but is not liable […]

Continue Reading →

Jurisdiction over Foreign Patents Requires – 1367(c) Analysis

The question before the Federal Circuit in Jan K. Voda, M.D. v. Cordis Corporation was whether where an accused infringer is shown to have moved its infringing activities offshore to Germany, the U.K. and elsewhere, does supplemental jurisdiction of the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1367, permit an infringement determination under the parallel foreign […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up