Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC v. Schlumberger Limited (No. 2015-1628, 9/12/16) (Lourie, Wallach, Hughes)
September 12, 2016 2:49 PM
Lourie, J. Affirming disqualification of plaintiff's counsel and affirming dismissal of complaint. "We recognize that there are important societal rights implicated by attorney disqualification, such as the right of a party to counsel of its choice and an attorney's right to freely practice his or her profession. However, there is an overriding countervailing concern suffusing the ethical rules: a client's entitlement to an attorney's adherence to her duty of loyalty, encompassing a duty of confidentiality... It was inappropriate to hire a senior attorney, one intimately knowledgeable concerning a particular product, its competitors, and its associated business strategies and intellectual property, into a position in which she not only participated in but in fact played a significant role in acquiring a patent used to accuse her former employer's product of patent infringement." Disqualification extended to in-house and outside counsel. Wallach, J. filled a separate concurrence.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer, Inc. (No. 2013-1668, 9/12/16) (Prost, Newman, Hughes)
September 12, 2016 9:22 AM
Prost, J. On remand from the Supreme Court, vacating and remanding district court's award of treble damages. Also vacating and remanding district court's finding that case was exceptional and its award of attorneys' fees. Also reaffirming finding that patents related to pulsed lavage devices were valid and infringed and affirming finding of willful infringement. The "decision to enhance damages is a discretionary one that the district court should make based on the circumstances of the case... Though we uphold the district court's willfulness determination, it does not necessarily follow that the case is exceptional."
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (No. 2015-1649, -1650, -1651, -1652, -1653, 9/9/16) (Newman, Mayer, Chen)
September 9, 2016 11:10 AM
Per Curiam. Affirming Board decision in an IPR that some claims, related to computerized research, are unpatentable and reversing the Board decision as to other claims and finding those other claims unpatentable. Chen, J. dissented-in-part.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development (No. 2015-1957, 9/8/16) (Newman, Lourie, Chen)
September 8, 2016 3:19 PM
Newman, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement. "The question is whether the monoclonal antibody of [the asserted claim] includes chimeric or humanized antibodies, when the patent specification describes only murine (mouse) monoclonal antibodies." During prosecution, the examiner rejected claims that would have covered humanized antibodies and the patentee acquiesced in that rejection. That file history prohibited construing the asserted claim to cover humanized antibodies.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Asia Vital Components Co. v. Asetek Danmark A/S (No. 2015-1597, 9/8/16) (Prost, Linn, Taranto)
September 8, 2016 1:40 PM
Prost, J. Reversing dismissal of declaratory judgment action and remanding. Patentee did not specifically accuse products made by the plaintiff, but the totality of the circumstances nonetheless provided subject matter jurisdiction for the declaratory judgment action. "The question of jurisdiction does not turn on [patentee's] knowledge of the specific [] products or whether [patentee] specifically alleged that the [particular] products infringed the asserted patents; instead, the question is whether under all the circumstances, [patentee's] actions 'can be reasonably inferred as demonstrating intent to enforce a patent."
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.