Federal Circuit Precedential

Category: 10 – October

  • Merck Serono S.A. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc.

    Under pre-AIA Section 102(e), a disclosure by a different inventive entity is excluded as a reference only if it reflects the collective work of the inventive entity named in the patent and thus is not “by another.”

  • Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP

    A statement made during prosecution may disclaim claim scope even if it does not lead to allowance, so long as the applicant’s characterization of the invention is clear and unambiguous.

  • Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc.

    Factual findings regarding invalidity in an IPR do not have issue preclusive effect on an invalidity proceeding at the district court because the standard of proof to show invalidity in an IPR is lower than the standard of proof to show invalidity at the district court.  

  • Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC

    A purported patent owner cannot assert a due process violation on behalf of a third party based on unresolved ownership of a patent challenged in an IPR.

  • Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

    Expert damages testimony based on a comparable license must reliably apportion value to the asserted patent to be admissible in a hypothetical negotiation analysis.