Federal Circuit Precedential

Category: 11 – November

  • EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC

    A district court’s finding of exceptionality under Section 285 is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the degree of deference does not depend on the length of time the case was pending before that court.

  • Duke University v. Sandoz Inc.

    A patent does not satisfy the written description requirement when the specification presents options that, despite appearing limited, still encompass numerous variations for a claimed compound, unless the specification provides clear “blaze marks” that guide a skilled artisan to the specific compounds or subgenus being claimed.

  • Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc.

    An expert witness who does not qualify as ordinary observer may still testify as to the perspective of an ordinary observer if the expert establishes that they are familiar with the perspective of the ordinary observer.

  • Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC

    Judicial correction of a patent claim is permitted only when the error is evident to a skilled artisan, the correction is the sole reasonable interpretation, and the prosecution history does not point to a different meaning.

  • In re Motorola Solutions, Inc.

    USPTO guidance rescinding the prior policy favoring institution of an IPR in the presence of a Sotera stipulation may be applied retroactively.  A Sotera stipulation is no longer sufficient on its own to avoid discretionary denial of IPR in view of parallel district court proceedings.