-
Read more: Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc.
Despite the presumption that a granted patent is valid, when a patent does not include sufficient explicit written description support, the patent owner may be required to provide evidence of validity.
-
Read more: FMC Corporation v. Sharda USA, LLC
Meaningful alterations made to an issued patent compared to its provisional application may be used to inform claim construction regardless of whether the alteration narrows or broadens the claim.
-
Read more: Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co. Ltd.
A damages expert must properly apportion license fees among licensed patents in a hypothetical negotiation based on prior licenses, and testimony cannot simply be justified by a series of adjustments without concrete facts or data.
-
Read more: Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC
To establish jurisdiction at the Federal Circuit, a question of federal patent law is not “necessarily raised” as a right to relief when an alternative basis for entitlement not related to patent law is also raised.
-
Read more: Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Intrastate Distributors, Inc.
Images that are not part of a trademark application should not be considered when determining commercial impression for likelihood of confusion of analysis, particularly when that image is not always shown with the mark when the mark is presented to consumers.
-
Read more: Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic Corevalve, LLC
Patent prosecution history estoppel may narrow the scope of an unamended claim when a substantively related claim is amended or cancelled, even if the related claim is not dependent on the unamended claim.
-
Read more: Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company LLC
Patent prosecution history disclaimer allows claim scope of a design patent to be limited by arguments made by the applicant during examination.
-
Read more: Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.
Whether applicant admitted prior art is used as the basis for an IPR petition is determined by the grounds raised in the IPR petition and not by the characterization of the prior art made by the PTAB in its Final Written Decision.
Want updates when we have new case summaries? Enter your email below to subscribe!