United States: Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2015

Last Updated: September 3 2015
Article by WilmerHale

View previous updates...

The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (No. 2014-1431, -1462, 8/28/15) (Prost, Dyk, Wallach)

August 28, 2015 5:22 PM

Dyk, J. Reversing award of supplemental damages. "We hold that the intervening change in the law of indefiniteness resulting from Nautilus provides an exception to the doctrine of law of the case or issue preclusion... In reviewing the supplemental damages award under the Nautilus standard, we hold that the claims are indefinite and reverse the award of supplemental damages." "Three conditions must be satisfied to reopen a previous decision under the change of law exception for both law of the case and issue preclusion. First, the governing law must have been altered... Second, the decision sought to be reopened must have applied old law... Third, the change in law must compel a different result under the facts of the particular case... Each of these requirements was satisfied here." The asserted claims relate to polymers and recite "a slope of strain hardening coefficient greater than or equal to 1.3." Four different methods existed for calculating the claimed slope and the methods do not always produce the same results. "Nether the patent claims nor the specification here discusses the four methods or provides any guidance as to which method should be used or even whether the possible universe of methods is limited to these four methods."

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Inline Plastics Corp. v. Easypak, LLC (No. 2014-1305, 8/27/15) (Newman, Clevenger, Dyk)

August 27, 2015 9:11 AM

Newman, J. Vacating judgment of non-infringement of patent relating to tamper-resistant plastic food containers. Also remanding for a determination of infringement in accordance with a corrected claim construction.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Progressive Casualty v. Liberty Mutual (No. 2014-1466, -1538, -1549, -1586, -1636, -1637, -1639, -1656, 8/24/15) (Prost, Wallach, Taranto)

August 24, 2015 9:48 AM

Taranto, J. Affirming Board decisions in CBMs. Patentee argued that § 325(e) barred the Board from entering a decision in one CBM because the Board posted its decision "just over an hour after, but the same day as" it posted another decision in a related CBM. While § 325(e) can limit a petitioner's ability to maintain a proceeding, "[n]othing in the provision, or chapter 32 more generally, equates that limitation on a petitioner with the Board authority to enter a decision... We see nothing in the statute (or any regulation or other source) that forecloses the Board's treatment of the two same-day decisions as simultaneous and therefore outside § 325(e)(1)'s scope, regardless of the precise times of posting on an electronic docketing system."

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Hyatt v. Lee (No. 2014-1596, 8/20/15) (Moore, Mayer, Linn)

August 20, 2015 12:42 PM

Moore, J. Affirming summary judgment that § 122 did not prohibit the PTO's disclosure of confidential information. The applicant filed twelve families of patent applications collectively including over a hundred thousand claims. The PTO issued "Requirements" limiting the number of claims the applicant could pursue in each family. The applicant filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia against the PTO alleging that the Requirements would violate § 122(a) by disclosing confidential information about otherwise non-public patent applications. The Court found that actions taken by the PTO under the "special circumstances" language of § 122(a) are reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard and further found that the PTO had not abused its discretion in finding that special circumstances justified the disclosure of confidential information.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

ABT Systems, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co. (No. 2014-1618, 2004-1700, 8/19/15) (Prost, Clevenger, Schall)

August 19, 2015 4:18 PM

Schall, J. Reversing denial of JMOL of invalidity and reversing judgment of no invalidity for patent related to heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. Also vacating judgment of infringement and remanding with instructions to dismiss.  "We are also not persuaded by [patentee's] argument that commercial success is demonstrated by the number of licenses taken under the [patent]. While licenses can sometimes tilt in favor of validity in close cases, they cannot by themselves overcome a convincing case of invalidity without showing a clear nexus to the claimed invention."

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Personalized User Model, LLP v. Google Inc. (No. 2014-1841, 2015-1022, 8/18/15) (Prost, Lourie, Reyna)

August 18, 2015 1:12 PM

Lourie, J. Affirming grant of JMOL for a breach of contract claim. Claim that an employee was obligated to assign patents to his employer was barred by the statute of limitations. The Court also declined to review the district court's claim construction.  "Despite [patentee's] concerns that the construction might be given preclusive effect in future litigation involving its related patents, we may not provide an advisory opinion on the meaning of a claim term that does not affect the merits of this appeal and thus is not properly before us. We therefore decline to review the district court's claim construction."

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

JVC Kenwood Corporation v. Nero, Inc. (No. 2014-1011, 8/17/15) (Newman, Dyk, Reyna)

August 17, 2015 3:40 PM

Newman, J. Plaintiffs sued software maker for induced and contributory infringement where software complied with DVD and Blue-Ray standards and patents were allegedly essential to standard. Where patents were part of patent pool and plaintiff itself had engaged in extensive licensing, plaintiff had burden of showing sale of unlicensed disks, which it failed to do. However, record was insufficient to support alternative holding based on patent exhaustion.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Technology (No. 2014-1360, -1500, 8/13/15) (Chen, Bryson, Hughes)

August 13, 2015 4:50 PM

Chen, J. Affirming district court's holding that exclusive licensee had all substantial rights in patent and therefore had standing to sue without patentee. Remanding to district court for further fact finding with respect to its denial of plaintiff's motion to amend its infringement contentions under the local rules of the Eastern District of Texas.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (No. 2009-1372, -1380, -1416, -1417, 8/13/15) (Prost, Newman, Lourie, Linn, Dyk, Moore, O'Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Hughes)

August 13, 2015 1:10 PM

Per curiam. On remand from Supreme Court, affirming jury verdict of direct infringement and holding no divided infringement. "We conclude, on the facts of this case, that liability under § 271(a) can also be found when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance."

WilmerHale represented the plaintiff-appellant Akamai.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee (No. 2014-1123, 8/12/15) (Moore, Mayer, Linn)

August 12, 2015 11:13 AM

Mayer, J. Vacating rejection of claims and remanding to the PTO for further consideration of claim construction in an ex parte reexamination in light of a contrary claim construction in district court proceedings.  "The fact that the board is not generally bound by a previous judicial interpretation of a disputed claim term does not mean, however, that it has no obligation to acknowledge that interpretation or to assess whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of the term."

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Suprema, Inc. v. ITC (No. 2012-1170, 8/10/15) (Prost, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, O'Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Hughes)

August 10, 2015 4:30 PM

Reyna, J. Under Section 337, the importation of goods that, after importation, are used by the importer to directly infringe at the inducement of the goods' seller can be an unfair trade practice subject to ITC jurisdiction even where the goods have non-infringing uses. Judges O'Malley, Prost, Lourie and Dyk dissented.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc. (No. 2014-1370, 8/7/15) (Lourie, Bryson, Chen)

August 7, 2015 3:10 PM

Chen, J. In case involving utility and design patents covering surgical instruments, (1) reversing summary judgment of indefiniteness of one utility patent (2) reversing summary judgment of non-infringement of utility patents based on disputed issues of fact (3) reversing summary judgement of invalidity of design patents as functional but (4) affirming summary judgment that design patents were not infringed. With respect to indefiniteness, the existence of different methods of testing whether claim limitation was satisfied did not render claims indefinite where differences in result were due to natural variances in real world testing conditions. With respect to the design patents, the district court failed to properly evaluate alternative designs that were available to achieve the desired functionality and therefore demonstrated that the claims were ornamental.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, LTD (No. 2014-1492, 8/4/15) (Lourie, Linn, Hughes)

August 4, 2015 2:15 PM

Lourie, J. Affirming jury verdict that claims were not anticipated and infringed, reversing finding of willful infringement and partially reversing reasonable royalty award. The district court properly rejected a laches defense in light of evidence of copying. Enhanced damages for willful infringement were incorrectly awarded because the defendant's defenses were objectively reasonable. The infringer need not have in mind the objectively reasonable defense at the time of infringement, and "a defense may be objectively reasonable and yet properly not be presented to the jury." On damages, a reasonable royalty could not be based on chips that never entered the United States unless their "sale" occurred in the United States.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (No. 2014-1275, 8/4/15) (Lourie, Linn, Hughes)

August 4, 2015 10:35 AM

Lourie, J. Affirming finding of infringement and rejecting obviousness, enablement and written description challenges to compositions and methods of treating glaucoma. Secondary considerations and teaching away supported claims having range limitations within the range of prior art disclosures. On written description, a "claim that recites a property that is necessarily inherent in a formulation that is described is not invalid as lacking written description merely because the property itself is not explicitly described." On enablement, even lacking efficacy data, the specification would have demonstrated utility to a person of ordinary skill. The district court's enablement finding was not in tension with its findings regarding predictability in the obviousness context.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions