After-the-fact Patent Assignment Too Late to Save Jurisdiction
A patent assignment that was prepared after a patent infringement law suit was commenced was too late to save jurisdiction the Federal Circuit held in Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC. Because the plaintiff did not obtain ownership of the patents at issue until after the lawsuit was commenced, the plaintiff lacked standing at the […]
Continue Reading →
Use of Foreign-conceived Invention in U.S. Not Sufficient to Support 102(g)(2) Defense
Section 102(g)(2) of the Patent Act creates a “prior inventor” defense to patent infringement. In Solvay SA v. Honeywell International, the Federal Circuit considered whether use of an invention by a third party within the United States prior to a patent’s priority date satisfies the prior inventor requirement of 102(g)(2), when the third party did […]
Continue Reading →
Bayh-Dole Patent Ownership Dispute to be heard by Supreme Court
Last week, the Supreme Court announced it will review the Federal Circuit decision in Stanford v. Roche, addressing patent ownership under the Bayh-Dole Act, after granting Stanford's petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court will decide an interesting patent ownership dispute involving the contractual obligation of a University inventor to assign rights to the […]
Continue Reading →
Supreme Court hears arguments today regarding first sale doctrine and international purchases
This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega S.A., a case regarding the potential international scope of the first sale doctrine. Costco lawfully purchased authentic Omega watches abroad and imported them to the United States for sale in its stores. Omega sued for copyright infringement, arguing the watches […]
Continue Reading →
Inventor’s prior art patents and prosecution history lead to reversal of claim construction
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity based on inadequate written description. The issue of infringement was reversed based on the district court's incorrect construction of a critical claim limitation. While the court held it was a "close case," it held the patentee […]
Continue Reading →
Supreme Court to hear case regarding proper standard for proving inducing infringement under 271(b)
In an order today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding the necessary intent for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The case is Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., docket number 10-6. The specific question presented is: Whether the legal standard for the state of mind element of a claim for […]
Continue Reading →
Compliance with industry standards can be used to show patent infringement
In Fujitsu et al v. Netgear, the Federal Circuit held compliance with an industry standard can be sufficient evidence to establish patent infringement. However, this rule only applies when the only way to adhere to the industry standard is to infringe the asserted patent, such that any product that complies with the standard infringes. In […]
Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit decisions address false marking statute in Solo Cup and Brooks Brothers cases
The Federal Circuit continues to address false marking cases. The court's recent decisions stress how important it is for patentees to monitor and update their labeling and other marking activities, particularly as patents expire. In June, the court affirmed a summary judgment decision in favor of Solo Cup related to the company's practice of marking […]
Continue Reading →
Preamble held not limiting because body of claim sets forth complete invention
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court had granted summary judgment of noninfringement to the defendant finding that the defendant's accused device did not perform a function found only in the preambles of the asserted claims.The Federal Circuit […]
Continue Reading →
Ninth Circuit: AutoCAD purchasers are licensees, so first sale doctrine does not apply to resale
In a decision last week, the Ninth Circuit held the purchaser of a copy of AutoCAD software was not an owner of the copy, but instead a licensee. As a result, the purchaser did not have the protection of the first sale doctrine (codified in 17 U.S.C. § 109(a)) when attempting to resell the software […]
Continue Reading →