Category: 2025
-
Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC
Expert testimony that is contradictory or unclear is insufficient to satisfy the patent owner’s burden of proving infringement.
-
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The phrase “clinically proven effective” cannot be the sole basis for patentability for a claim, as this is a functionally unrelated limitation to a claimed method or composition.
-
Future Link Systems, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
For the purpose of awarding costs and the possibility of attorneys’ fees, a party that achieves a dismissal with prejudice is considered the prevailing party.
-
Magema Technology LLC v. Phillips 66
A general verdict in a trial including an erroneously submitted theory can only be upheld as harmless error if the court is totally satisfied or reasonably certain that the verdict was not based on the error.
-
PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc.
When determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea under step one of the Alice test, the entire claim must be considered. Elements of the claim that are found in the prior art cannot be ignored.
-
Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc.
Despite the presumption that a granted patent is valid, when a patent does not include sufficient explicit written description support, the patent owner may be required to provide evidence of validity.
-
FMC Corporation v. Sharda USA, LLC
Meaningful alterations made to an issued patent compared to its provisional application may be used to inform claim construction regardless of whether the alteration narrows or broadens the claim.
-
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.
Federal Circuit Precedential 