Filewrapper

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 →

Federal Circuit again dismisses patent case for lack of standing

The Federal Circuit has once again found the plaintiff in a patent infringement lawsuit did not have standing to bring its infringement claim. In order for a single plaintiff to have standing to assert infringement of a patent, that plaintiff must be the owner of the entire interest in the patent. As succinctly stated by […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Places Members of the Bar on Notice

It’s not over until it’s over. In International Electronic Technology Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Company, DirecTV, Inc. and Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., the Federal Circuit dismissed International Electronic’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In its ruling, the Federal Circuit stated: “The court takes umbrage at parties who have not carefully screened their cases to ascertain […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit to decide scope of attorney-client privilege waiver en banc

The Federal Circuit this afternoon agreed to hear a case to determine the scope of the waiver of attorney-client privilege when advice of counsel is used to defend against a charge of willful infringement. The order in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, which can be found here, invites the parties to brief the following questions: […]

Continue Reading →

Walker Process antitrust claim reinstated: threats to sue competitor’s customers sufficient

In Hydril Co. v. Grant Prideco, Inc., the Federal Circuit reinstated a Walker Process antitrust claim the lower court had dismissed. A Walker Process claim can arise when a patent holder, knowing that its patent was obtained through fraud, still attempts to enforce the patent. This type of claim is named after the Supreme Court […]

Continue Reading →

University Can’t Have Its Cake and Eat It Too – Immunity Negated

The University of Missouri’s waived its constitutional immunity under the Eleventh Amendment when it fully participated in an interference action against Vas-Cath, Inc. A Vas-Cath patent had issued while the University’s application, although filed before the Vas-Cath application, was still pending. The University invoked the procedures to institute an interference between the University’s pending application […]

Continue Reading →

“Critical” ratio in claim does not get the benefit of the doctrine of equivalents

Today’s lesson from the Federal Circuit: be careful not to make a claim limitation “critical,” or you may lose the benefit of the doctrine of equivalents for that element. The court found that the claimed weight ratio of two drugs was critical in part because other claims recited a range of ratios, but the claim […]

Continue Reading →

Appeals Court holds Transclean Corporation to its stated position

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in Transclean v. Jiffy Lube that Transclean should be bound by its repeated statements proffered during the course of litigation and not be allowed to take a contrary position during a second phase of litigation. Transclean is the sole licensee of U.S. Patent No. […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

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

Sign Up