Federal Circuit addresses claim construction, on-sale and public use bars, and DJ jurisdiction In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit vacated in part a district court's claim construction of a several terms as well as its decision to find no infringement of patents owned by Honeywell. The court did, however, affirm the district court's retention of jurisdiction over the several withdrawn claims and the decision that Honeywell's pre-critical […] Continue Reading →
Australia’s High Court weighs in on obviousness There is a good post over at the Patent Prospector about a decision by the High Court of Australia (the equivalent to the U.S. Supreme Court) regarding the issue of obviousness in patent law. One notable passage: as a basic premise, obviousness and inventiveness are antitheses and the question is always "is the step taken […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit affirms damage award to Monsanto against farmer who saved seed In the latest in a series of appeals to the Federal Circuit, the court affirmed a jury's award of damages to Monsanto for infringement of patents relating to glyphosate resistant plants. The defendant, a farmer, had saved seeds from his crops from one growing season to the next in violation of the terms of the […] Continue Reading →
Chief Judge Michel weighs in on two aspects of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 In a letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch, Chief Judge Paul Michel of the Federal Circuit expresses concern with two provisions of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908 and S. 1145). The letter, dated May 3 (two weeks after the bills were introduced), addresses what Chief Judge Michel perceives to be […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit reverses lost profits award and finding of personal liability In a decision today, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury's award of damages based on lost profits as well as personal liability against the defendant corporation's principal. The district court let the issue of lost profits damages go to the jury, but the Federal Circuit determined that, as a matter of law, the court should […] Continue Reading →
House subcommittee sends Patent Reform Act of 2007 to full Judiciary Committee The House subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property this week has approved the House version of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908). The bill now goes to the full House Judiciary Committee for further review before going to the House for a full vote. Although this is a key first hurdle […] Continue Reading →
Coalition of over 100 companies expresses concerns over the Patent Reform Act of 2007 In a letter to democratic and republican leadership as well as the members of the House and Senate judiciary committees, the Innovation Alliance, along with over 100 other companies, expressed concern over many of the proposed reforms in the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908 and S. 1145). The group states that many of […] Continue Reading →
Proper successor shielded from patent infringement claim In General Mills, Inc. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that General Mills's claim for patent infringement against Kraft Foods was barred by a covenant not to sue that General Mills granted to Farley Candy Company, Kraft's predecessor in interest. In affirming the district court's […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit post-KSR: Combination of familiar elements obvious when yielding predictable results In this matter before the Federal Circuit, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of judgment that Fisher-Price's PowerTouch device did not infringe claim 25 of LeapFrog's U.S. Patent 5,813,861 ("the '861 patent") and that claim 25 of the '861 patent was invalid as obvious. Notably, the court cited the Supreme Court's KSR decision for […] Continue Reading →
Initial thoughts on KSR v. Teleflex After an initial reading of the opinion in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., several issues jump out. There are four (4) reasons why the Federal Circuit's TSM test is no longer the exclusive test for obviousness While the Court noted that the Federal Circuit's "teaching-suggestion-motivation" (TSM) test was not necessarily inconsistent with cases such […] Continue Reading →