Federal Circuit Precedential

Category: 07 – July

  • 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.

  • 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.   

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    A presumption of obviousness is not automatically created by a prior art reference that discloses a claimed feature in an amount that overlaps a claimed amount of that feature. A full obviousness inquiry may be necessary when considering additional features of the claim that go beyond the claimed amount.

  • Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

    The ability to argue for an alternative claim construction is waived on appeal when the appeal is directed to sufficiency of the evidence and does not argue that claim construction is necessary.