In patent litigation, the question of whether venue is proper often turns on whether a defendant resides in the forum. The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that an “action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant... read more →
Feb
22
Oct
05
In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [En Banc Opinion], Appeal Nos. 2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994, the Federal Circuit vacated the panel decision, reinstated Apple’s $120 million jury verdict, and remanded the willfulness issue for consideration under the Halo standard. At the district court, a jury awarded Apple nearly $120... read more →
Oct
04
In Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., Appeal No. 2015-1599, the claims reciting a method related to circuit design were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The asserted method claims recite translating a functional description of a logic circuit (e.g., software code) into a hardware component description of the logic... read more →
Oct
04
In Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1881, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that a clear and unmistakable prosecution disclaimer had not occurred during prosecution of a parent application and also affirmed that the term “three-dimensional” was not indefinite. MIT sued Shire... read more →
Oct
03
In Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1200, the Federal Circuit affirmed a narrow claim construction based on a “clear and unequivocal” disavowal of claim scope in the specification and prosecution history. Poly-America sued API for infringing its drawstring trash bag patent. The entry of judgment turned, in... read more →
Oct
02
In FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1985, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that FairWarning’s patent claimed patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. FairWarning sued Iatric Systems asserting its patent titled “System and Method of Fraud and Misuse Detection.” Specifically, the patent... read more →
Oct
01
In In Re: Constantin Efthymiopoulos, Appeal No. 2016-1003, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of all pending claims as obvious. Applicant applied for a patent directed to methods of treating influenza by administering the drug zanamivir through oral inhalation. The Examiner... read more →
Oct
01
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2015-1977, 2015-1986, 2015-1987, the Federal Circuit ruled that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board determination to vacate an institution decision and terminate IPR proceedings is not reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo... read more →