-
Read more: Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC
Judicial correction of a patent claim is permitted only when the error is evident to a skilled artisan, the correction is the sole reasonable interpretation, and the prosecution history does not point to a different meaning.
-
Read more: In re Motorola Solutions, Inc.
USPTO guidance rescinding the prior policy favoring institution of an IPR in the presence of a Sotera stipulation may be applied retroactively. A Sotera stipulation is no longer sufficient on its own to avoid discretionary denial of IPR in view of parallel district court proceedings.
-
Read more: Merck Serono S.A. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc.
Under pre-AIA Section 102(e), a disclosure by a different inventive entity is excluded as a reference only if it reflects the collective work of the inventive entity named in the patent and thus is not “by another.”
-
Read more: Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP
A statement made during prosecution may disclaim claim scope even if it does not lead to allowance, so long as the applicant’s characterization of the invention is clear and unambiguous.
-
Read more: Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc.
Factual findings regarding invalidity in an IPR do not have issue preclusive effect on an invalidity proceeding at the district court because the standard of proof to show invalidity in an IPR is lower than the standard of proof to show invalidity at the district court.
-
Read more: Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC
A purported patent owner cannot assert a due process violation on behalf of a third party based on unresolved ownership of a patent challenged in an IPR.
-
Read more: Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
Expert damages testimony based on a comparable license must reliably apportion value to the asserted patent to be admissible in a hypothetical negotiation analysis.
-
Read more: Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp.
When goods or services are found to be highly similar under one DuPont factor, that same scope of similarity must be applied consistently across the remaining DuPont factors.
Want updates when we have new case summaries? Enter your email below to subscribe!
Federal Circuit Precedential 