-
Read more: Crocs Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc.
A party may violate Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act by falsely claiming that a product or service is patented if the advertisement misleads consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of the product or service.
-
Read more: Provisur Technologies Inc. v. Weber, Inc.
A device must be readily configurable to meet the claim limitations to infringe an asserted claim. The failure to obtain advice from a third party regarding an allegedly infringed patent cannot be used to prove willful infringement.
-
Read more: EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC
The Federal Circuit granted Google’s rehearing petition, vacating the decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, to reassess testimony from EcoFactor’s damages expert concerning reasonable royalty rates.
-
Read more: Astellas Pharma, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
Patent eligibility under Section 101 should only be addressed if this issue is raised by one of the parties.
-
Read more: Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.
Claim construction requires each claim to be construed on a claim-by-claim basis. Therefore, the functional limitations between claims in a patent may vary as long as the boundaries of that functional limitation is clearly defined within each claim.
-
Read more: Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc.
Section 101 requires that claims be directed to a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology of the claim. Simply claiming an improved result is not enough to support patent eligibility.
Want updates when we have new case summaries? Enter your email below to subscribe!
Federal Circuit Precedential 