Knobbe/Martens: Intellectual Property Law

Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation Blog

BLACKBIRD TECH LLC V. ELB ELECTRONICS, INC.

July 17, 2018 Shuchen Gong and Karen M. Cassidy

Before Prost, Moore and Reyna. Appeal from the District Court of Delaware.

Summary: A limitation in the specification should not be imported into a claim when there is no evidence that the limitation is important, essential or critical.

 

JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC

July 16, 2018 Noorean I. Gill and Nicole R. Townes

Before Newman, Lourie, and Reyna.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary:  References were sufficiently accessible to the public to constitute printed publication prior art even if they were not searchable or indexed because the materials were located on a publicly available website, specific instructions on how to access the materials were provided, the materials were available for at least two months before the critical date of the patents at issue, and there was no reasonable expectation that the materials would remain confidential.

 

TF3 LIMITED V. TRE MILANO, LLC

Before Newman, Lourie, and Hughes.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Claim construction was not reasonable where it extended the breadth of the claims beyond what was described in the specification.

 

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS SOLUTIONS V. CUSTOPHARM INC.

July 16, 2018 Ari Feinstein and Nicole R. Townes

Before Moore, Linn, and Chen.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: A prior art reference does not inherently disclose the elements of a claim limitation if the prior art describes the performance of the elements but does not include a complete description of the elements. 

 

RAYTHEON COMPANY v. INDIGO SYSTEMS CORPORATION, FLIR SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

July 16, 2018 Diana E. Wade and Christie Matthaei

Before Chen, Newman and Dyk. Appeal from the Eastern District of Texas.

Summary: The Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA), which awards attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, does not permit the recovery of attorney’s fees for trade secret claims brought under a different state’s trade secret law, even if a favorable decision is issued by a district court in Texas.

 

POLARA ENGINEERING INC v. CAMPBELL COMPANY

July 12, 2018 Keith Lim and Adam Powell

Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

Summary: (1) The public use bar is not triggered by experimental use testing the claimed features to determine if the invention works for its intended purpose, and (2) a district court must fully explain its decision to enhance damages following a willful infringement finding. 

 

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., V. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Chen.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Summary: In order to rely on the entire market value rule to calculate damages, a patentee must prove that the unpatented features in the accused product did not influence consumer demand.

ADIDAS AG v. NIKE, INC.

Before Moore, Wallach, and Taranto.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu requires the Board in an instituted IPR proceeding to address all grounds for unpatentability raised in the IPR petition in its final written decision.

IMPAX LABORATORIES INC. v. LANNETT HOLDINGS INC.

June 28, 2018 Sabrina Wang and Christie Matthaei

Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the  District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary:  A passing reference in the prior art to a formulation containing the claimed active ingredient and the claimed administration route may not be sufficient to invalidate a claim.

 

WESTERNGECO LLC V. ION GEOPHYSICAL CORP.

June 22, 2018 April K. White and Mark Kachner

Before the Supreme Court. Thomas delivered opinion, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  Gorsuch dissenting, joined by Breyer.

Summary: Patentee may recover foreign lost profits, where infringer violated § 271(f)(2) by exporting from the United States a component of a patented invention.

Pages

Attorney Finder