Filewrapper

Advice of counsel evidence still relevant to intent to induce infringement

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury's finding of infringement of two patents and the related injunction, but reversed the district court's claim construction and the concomitant finding of infringement regarding a third patent. The court affirmed the district court's injunction despite the fact that the patentee licensed, rather than manufactured, the […]

Continue Reading →

FDA research safe harbor does not extend to devices not subject to FDA approval

In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's holding of patent infringement on the basis that the "safe harbor" provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act, § 271(e)(1), did not insulate the accused activity from infringement and that the district court did not err in granting a judgment as a matter of law in […]

Continue Reading →

Arguments made distinguishing prior art spell doom for broader claim construction

In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's claim construction and related grant of summary judgment of non-infringement.The court affirmed the construction in part because the plaintiff's interpretation of the claim elements was at odds with the plaintiff's stance during the prosecution history. Specifically, the patentee added the element in question […]

Continue Reading →

Failure to consider evidence of good faith leads to reversal of inequitable conduct finding

In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of no infringement and invalidity for obviousness, and reversed the district court's finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct.The Federal Circuit, citing KSR, noted that an obviousness analysis can take account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill […]

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 →

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 →

271(e) safe harbor applies to both product and method claims in ITC proceedings

In a ruling today, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) concerning the application of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 and 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) to imported products and products imported produced via a patented process. The main issue before the court was whether the safe harbor against infringement […]

Continue Reading →

Claims requiring an “insert” do not cover products with similar structure not “inserted”

In a decision Wednesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling granting summary judgment of non-infringement. At the outset, the court noted the patent at issue had been before the court multiple times, and the claim terms at issue in this appeal had already been construed by the court in earlier cases.As the district […]

Continue Reading →

When market entry fee part of damages for patent infringement, permanent injunction inappropriate

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of infringement of a patent relating to the detection and classification of Hepatitis C Virus, but remanded the case for a determination of anticipation. In arguably the most interesting aspect of the decision, the court vacated the permanent injunction entered against the defendant. The plaintiff […]

Continue Reading →

Pre-KSR obviousness instruction does not result in plain error post-KSR

In a decision this week, the Federal Circuit affirmed findings of infringement of two patents by two defendants. The court also reversed an invalidity ruling of one of one claim that had been the subject of reexamination, but remanded the case to the district court for a determination of the obviousness of one claim based […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

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

Sign Up