Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd. (No. 2014-1807, 7/6/15) (Newman, Reyna, Wallach)
July 6, 2015 3:20 PM
Reyna, J. Affirming lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant under "stream of commerce" theory where defendant that did not make sales directly to North Carolina but only sold to dealers who sold in North Carolina.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial (No. 2014-1506, 7/6/15) (Dyk, Reyna, Chen)
July 6, 2015 1:12 PM
Dyke, J. Affirming holding that claims directed to internet activities were drawn to ineligible subject matter under Section 101.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Daiichi Sankyo Company v. Lee (No. 2014-1280, 7/2/15) (Moore, Reyna, Taranto)
July 2, 2015 4:40 PM
Reyna, J. Affirming PTO's calculation of patent term adjustment. The patentee sought judicial review too late to take advantage of a change in the PTO's method of calculation.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Westerngeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp. (No. 2014-1527, -1121, -1526, -1528, 7/2/15) (Dyk, Wallach, Hughes)
July 2, 2015 11:44 AM
Dyk, J. Following jury trial, affirming trial court 's ruling on patents directed to oil and gas exploration technologies except for award of lost profits resulting from conduct occurring abroad. The claims were system claims found to infringe under 271(f)(1) and (2). While 271(f) expanded the territorial scope of the patent law to apply to the export of components of patented systems abroad, it does not confer a right to recover "full compensation" for acts occurring outside of the United States. With respect to a conditional cross appeal, the district court did not err in excluding the plaintiff's royalty theory which would have eliminated all profits and revenues of the defendant. Wallach, J. dissented.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc. (No. 2014-1469, -1504, 7/2/15) (Dyk, Wallach, Hughes)
July 2, 2015 9:04 AM
Hughes, J. Reversing judgment that claims were not invalid under on-sale bar. The on-sale bar was applicable to commercial sale of services that resulted in claimed product-by-process formulation.
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.
