-
Read more: EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC
A district court’s finding of exceptionality under Section 285 is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the degree of deference does not depend on the length of time the case was pending before that court.
-
Read more: Duke University v. Sandoz Inc.
A patent does not satisfy the written description requirement when the specification presents options that, despite appearing limited, still encompass numerous variations for a claimed compound, unless the specification provides clear “blaze marks” that guide a skilled artisan to the specific compounds or subgenus being claimed.
-
Read more: Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc.
An expert witness who does not qualify as ordinary observer may still testify as to the perspective of an ordinary observer if the expert establishes that they are familiar with the perspective of the ordinary observer.
-
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.
Want updates when we have new case summaries? Enter your email below to subscribe!