An obligation to indemnify a customer from patent infringement liability is sufficient to establish Article III standing for a supplier when the customer is accused of patent infringement by the patent owner.
Even when all of the embodiments in a written description depict a certain feature, this feature is only imported into the claims if expressly stated in the claim or explicitly defined in the specification.
A claimed solution to a problem that is not known in the prior art is not automatically non-obvious.
The USPTO has discretion to deny a request for Director review on PTAB decisions made before Arthrex when an Appointments Clause challenge was not timely presented upon appeal.
Whether a party is a real party in interest or privy under Section 315(e)(1) is a question of fact that should not be decided in the first instance on appeal.
A product-by-process claim is not inherently anticipated by a reference that merely discloses the claimed process. When determining validity of a product-by-process claim, the focus is whether the prior art discloses the claimed product and not the process of making the claimed product.
A claim that recites material properties to define structural characteristics of the claimed composition is not directed to an abstract idea that is patent ineligible under Section 101 when the specification clearly explains the correlation between the claimed properties and the structural characteristics.
A decision of unpatentability in an IPR reached under a preponderance of the evidence standard cannot collaterally estop the patentee from asserting other, unadjudicated claims at the district court.
Want updates when we have new case summaries? Enter your email below to subscribe!