|
Papst Licensing v. Fujifilm Corporation (No. 2014-1110, 2/2/15) (Taranto, Schall, Chen) February 2, 2015 11:03 AM Taranto, J. Vacating summary judgment of non-infringement of patents relating to transferring data between an input/output device and a computer, and remanding. "In the district court, [patent owner] opposed the construction it now opposes, and it was not required to state its opposition twice. [Patent owner] could not have given the district court the impression that it suddenly supported the construction when, in seeking a modification, it limited its request to a manifest error resting on a plain misapprehension of the record, rather than rehashing the broader arguments on claim construction that the court had fully considered. [Patent owner's] limited approach in seeking a modification was, indeed, commendably consistent with the general anti-repetition principle governing requests for reconsideration." A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
In re: Imes (No. 2014-1206, 1/29/15) (Lourie, Moore, Chen) January 29, 2015 10:14 AM Moore, J. Reversing Board's finding of invalidity of claims related to communicating digital images and video over a network and remanding. "The Patent Office's construction of 'wireless' to include communications along metal contacts of the removable memory card and the computer system is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification." The Court also found that sending "a series of e-mails with attached still images is not the same as streaming video." A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (No. 13-854, 1/20/15) January 20, 2015 1:09 PM Breyer, J. Vacating judgment of indefiniteness and remanding. Although claim construction is reviewed de novo, a trial judge's resolution of underlying factual disputes should be reviewed under a "clear error" standard. "[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications, along with the patent's prosecution history), the judge's determination will amount solely to a determination of law, and the Court of Appeals will review that construction de novo... In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent's intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period... In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence... Accordingly, the question we have answered here concerns review of the district court's resolution of a subsidiary factual dispute that helps that court determine the proper interpretation of the written patent claim. The district judge, after deciding the factual dispute, will then interpret the patent claim in light of the facts as he has found them. This ultimate interpretation is a legal conclusion. The appellate court can still review the district court's ultimate construction of the claim de novo. But, to overturn the judge's resolution of an underlying factual dispute, the Court of Appeals must find that the judge, in respect to those factual findings, has made a clear error. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a)(6)." Justices Thomas and Alito dissented. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Neurorepair, Inc. v. Nath Law Group (No. 2013-1073, 1/15/15) (Wallach, Chen, Hughes) January 15, 2015 10:22 AM Wallach, J. Reversing district court and holding state law malpractice claim involving patent law representation improperly removed to federal court. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Bard Peripheral Vascular v. W.L. Gore & Associates (No. 2014-1114, 1/13/15) (Prost, Newman, Hughes) January 13, 2015 3:40 PM Prost, J. Affirming finding of willful infringement of patent related to vascular grafts. Inventorship defense was not objectively reasonable even though member of a prior appellate panel had dissented on the issue. Also rejecting a standing defense. Hughes, J. concurred, but urged en banc review. Newman, J. dissented. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Delano Farms Company v. California Table Grape Comm. (No. 2014-1030, 1/9/15) (Prost, Bryson, Hughes) January 9, 2015 4:10 PM Bryson, J. Affirming judgment that unauthorized planting of
plant varieties did not constitute a public use invalidating
patents directed to table grapes. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
