Federal Circuit Precedential

Category: 05 – May

  • Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.

    Claim construction may be performed implicitly when interpreting inherent disclosure of a prior art reference if the interpretation establishes the scope and meaning of a claim.

  • Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc.

    A plaintiff must have a commercial interest to bring an opposition to the registration of a trademark for being descriptive or generic, merely being a consumer is not sufficient to confer standing. 

  • EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC (en banc)

    A court plays a gatekeeping role to ensure that expert testimony on patent damages is only admissible if the testimony is based on sufficient factual evidence and reliable methodology.  When relevant evidence is contrary to a critical fact on which the expert relied, the expert’s testimony is not admissible.

  • Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc.

    For conception, an idea must be in sufficiently final form such that only exercise of ordinary skill remains to reduce the idea to practice without extensive research or experimentation.  Evidence of both the inventor’s experimentation and third-party experimentation should be considered to determine whether the idea was able to be reduced to practice using only…

  • In re Kostic

    When considering whether a reissued patent broadens the scope of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. §251(d), the scope of the claims of the original patent are reviewed as written and without consideration of the subjective intent of the inventors.