Federal Circuit Precedential

Category: 2024

  • Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

    Expert opinions that are based on unsupported evidence are not sufficient to create a dispute of material fact in order to overcome summary judgment.

  • Cisco Systems, Inc. v. K.Mizra LLC

    A motion to dismiss an appeal after the court has already issued a decision is often improper, even when the parties have not made a request to vacate the opinion.

  • NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

    Proving infringement by the doctrine of equivalents requires particularized evidence that comes from the perspective of a person skilled in the art. This standard does not change based on the complexity of the claimed technology.

  • Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States), Inc.

    A domestic case may be dispositive of a foreign case for the purpose of an antisuit injunction even if the case only resolves the issue of a temporary injunction and not the entire proceeding. To be dispositive, it is only required that the domestic case has the potential to resolve the foreign issue.

  • UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp.

    A court may engage in claim construction when deciding a motion to dismiss without a separate claim construction proceeding. A plural claim term may mean one or more if there is sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the plural term requires at least two.

  • AlexSam, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc.

    A trial court’s decision regarding whether an allegation is well-pled and factual or merely a conclusory legal statement is reviewed de novo.

  • 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.

  • 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.