More on Crocs at the CAFC Another decision regarding a number of patents relating to foam based footware, this time held by Crocs, Inc. ("Crocs") has been handed down from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC"). In this appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission ("USITC"), the court addressed obviousness of a utility patent and claim construction of […] Continue Reading →
Harmless Error at the Federal Circuit A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of how much deference should be given to a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences when the Board makes an error in ascertaining the teachings of references. The appeal concerns the status of U.S. Patent Application number […] Continue Reading →
Common sense held sufficient to invalidate claims as obvious on summary judgment If anyone needed further proof that patents are more easily held obvious after KSR, look no further. The Federal Circuit held that a patent directed to a method of email marketing with improved efficiency was obvious based on the "common sense" of one in the art. The claimed method had four steps, the fourth of […] Continue Reading →
Dependent claim can’t be obvious when indepdendent claim is not; verdict vacated as inconsistent In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part a district court's decision regarding obviousness, holding the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid for obviousness. The court vacated the district court's entry of judgment of an inconsistent jury verdict of obviousness: the jury held a dependent claim obvious but […] Continue Reading →
When compounds in a class have divergent properties, positional isomer not obvious In a decision Wednesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's determination that the asserted claims in a pharmaceutical patent were not proven obvious. As is common in pharmaceutical cases, the defendant filed an ANDA asserting the patent covering the compound and its use was invalid, and in the ensuing infringement suit admitted its proposed […] Continue Reading →
Use of court-appointed expert not abuse of discretion, even when jury told of neutrality In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit held it was not an abuse of discretion for a district court to retain an independent expert pursuant to Rule 706 to assist the jury in understanding the technology relating to a complicated electrical patent. The district court was frustrated with the technology, and observed "the notion that […] Continue Reading →
Kubin decided: Federal Circuit provides guidance for application of KSR in biotechnology Today the Federal Circuit decided the appeal in In re Kubin, a case dealing with how the Supreme Court's KSR decision will apply in the field of biotechnology. The decision is available here. We previously blogged about the BPAI decision here and the Federal Circuit's oral arguments here. Those posts have detailed descriptions of the […] Continue Reading →
Summary judgment of validity reversed; predictable variation of prior art obvious as a matter of law In a decision last month, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's summary judgment to the plaintiff. The district court had awarded damages after granting summary judgment of "validity" and infringement. While the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court's construction of a disputed claim term, the court held the asserted claims were obvious as […] Continue Reading →
Combining two embodiments in same prior art patent “does not require a leap of inventiveness” In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law of obviousness. A jury held the claim at issue was not obvious, and the district court denied the defendant's post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue.While the Federal Circuit affirmed the […] Continue Reading →
Patent lawyer without expertise in relevant field cannot testify on infringement, invalidity The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court's post-verdict grant of judgment as a matter of law of nonobviousness, applying the KSR obviousness standard and addressing the requirements for expert testimony for legal conclusions of obviousness. The Federal Circuit clearly set forth that patent attorneys without specific skill and training in the area of the […] Continue Reading →