Knobbe/Martens: Intellectual Property Law

Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation Blog

CENTRAK, INC. v. SONITOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

February 15, 2019 James Smith and Andrea Cheek

Before Reyna, Taranto, and Chen.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary:  Where the complexity and predictability of a claimed embodiment were disputed, summary judgment finding inadequate written description was not appropriate.  Additionally, a final assembler can be liable for making an infringing product even if it does not make each individual component element.

 

 

CONTINENTAL CIRCUITS LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION

February 8, 2019 Josepher Li and Kendall Loebbaka

Before Lourie, Linn, and Taranto.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Summary:  Reading a process limitation into a product claim is improper where the patentee did not clearly and unmistakably disavow claim scope and also did not make clear that the process is an essential part of the claimed invention.

 

MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

February 7, 2019 Jacob R. Rosenbaum and Jeremy Anapol

Before Newman, Dyk, and Chen.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: An injury-in-fact is required to establish Article III standing for judicial review of agency action, even if a statute permits such review.

 

ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

February 7, 2019 Nathan J. Lee and Christie Matthaei

Before Judge Newman, Laurie and Stoll.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Summary:  Claims reciting only conventional steps to detect a natural law, are patent-ineligible under § 101.

 

IN RE: GOOGLE LLC

February 6, 2019 Clayton R. Henson and Nicole R. Townes

Before Prost, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. Dissenting opinion to denial of petition for rehearing written by Reyna and joined by Newman and Lourie. 

Summary: The Federal Circuit elected not to review en banc the issue of whether servers or similar equipment in third-party facilities constitute a regular and established place of business for purposes of determining whether venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).  The dissenters argued that the Federal Circuit’s denial sidestepped the purpose of mandamus relief and left unanswered a critical question that affects venue. 

 

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. RESEARCH CORPORATION TECH.

February 4, 2019 David J. Grant and Adam Powell

Before Lourie, Bryson, and Wallach.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: A party joined to an inter partes review has the right to appeal the Board’s final written decision even if the initial petitioner does not appeal.

 

DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES v. IPS GROUP, INC.

February 1, 2019 Mark E. Davis and Karen M. Cassidy

Before Lourie, Dyk and Taranto. Consolidated Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Southern District of California.

Summary: A person is a joint inventor of the anticipating portions of a reference for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) when the person’s contributions to that anticipating portion are significant in view of the invention as a whole.

 

BARRY v. MEDTRONIC, INC.

January 25, 2019 Derk A. Westermeyer and Mark Kachner

Before Chief Judge Prost, Moore, and Taranto.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Summary:  An invention is not “ready for patenting” to trigger a public use bar until the invention has been tested in a variety of settings and is known to work for its intended purpose.

 

 

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ET AL. V. IANCU

Before Dyk, Schall, and Reyna.  Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Summary: The USPTO is only authorized to reduce Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) for applicant delay equal to a period of time during which applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution.

 

PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORP. V. OFFICE DEPOT INC. ET AL.

January 22, 2019 Jeremy Anapol and Eric R. Malmgren

Before Dyk, Taranto, and Stoll.  Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: The Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court judgment that is non-final because it does not foreclose a litigant’s ability to establish an element of its claim.

 

Pages

Attorney Finder