在专利申请期间撤回权利要求可触发申请过程禁反言 在UCB, Inc.诉 Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd.一案（上诉编号：2015-1957）中，联邦巡回法院认为,申请过程禁反言亦可适用于没有缩小具体拟定权利要求的情况。 虽然权利要求通用术语是根据其已知技术领域来解释,联邦巡回法院认为,专利申请人其后不能获得在审查期间已被审查员驳回继而被申请人撤回的权利要求。 联邦巡回法院认同地方法院就权利要求作出的解释,该解释缩小了专利说明书中特定种类的通用术语范围,这是因为申请人在专利申请期间已撤回了针对附加种类的权利要求。 故意性并不一定意味着案件异常性 在Stryker Corporation诉Zimmer, Inc.一案（上诉编号：2013-1668）中，联邦巡回法院认为,Seagate案中针对故意行为作出的加重损害赔偿金和律师费裁决并不一定意味着在Halo案中针对故意行为而裁定加重损害赔偿金和费用的裁决具有合理性。 最高法院一并裁决了Halo案和Stryker案,并推翻了Seagate案和当时针对专利故意侵权行为和加重损害赔偿金的适用法规。 Seagate案对故意侵权的测试需要明确且据令人信服的证据,其被控侵权人客观来说是不顾后果且被控侵权人已知道或应该知道侵权的风险。 在Halo案和Stryker案中,最高法院认为,如不考虑客观上不顾后果的行为,就单以主观上故意性即可导致加重损害赔偿裁决,且最高法院并摒弃需要明确且据令人信服的证据,反而支持优势证据之标准。 在本案发回重审时,联邦巡回法院维持陪审团作出的主观故意侵权裁决,认为根据更明确和据有说服力的证据之标准所认定的故意性足以匹敌根据较低优势标准所认定的故意性。 但是,联邦巡回法院根据Halo案撤销了加重损害赔偿裁决,并将案件发回地方法院重新审议,允许地方法院根据案件具体情况酌情作出加重损害赔偿金裁决。 联邦巡回法院还撤销了仅基于故意侵权行为认定而作出的律师费裁决并将其发回重审。 认定其故意性并不一定解读为案件具有异常性。 根据Octane Fitness,案件是否具有异常性由法院根据具体情况逐案裁定。 …
Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel…
On October 31, the federal district court in Boston awarded Knobbe Martens client CardiAQ $21 million in enhanced damages in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit the company filed against former…
Knobbe Martens has once again been recognized by U.S. News & World Report, and its survey partner Best Lawyers, as a “2017 Best Law Firm” for its patent law and…
Litigation Partner Lynda Zadra-Symes provided her expertise on copyright protection to Bloomberg BNA for their latest article “Fashion Industry Fears Cheerleader Case Will Shrink Copyright Protection.” The article was featured…
Seattle Partner Mauricio Uribe sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss what top IP-focused law firms are seeing in terms of growth in specific industries and types of IP in Amanda…
On October 26, 2016, three Knobbe Martens attorneys participated in an IP seminar sponsored by i-PAC (International Patent Assistance Center) of the Korea Electronics Association (KEA), at the 47th Korea…
Washington, D.C. Associate Cassie R. Gourash discussed a Third Circuit product-hopping case in a Pennsylvania Record article “Third Circuit Decision In Product-hopping Case May Be At Odds With Prior Case, Attorney…
Read the full press release here
Orange County Partner Jeff Van Hoosear interviewed with Bloomberg BNA’s Patent Trademark & Copyright Journal to discuss the recent U-Haul $41.4 million trademark infringement settlement. The article is titled “U-Haul’s $41.4M…
