Absolute or Equitable Intervening Rights, It Matters

by Daniel Hegner on March 7th, 2019
Delaware District Court grants-in-part and denies-in-part patentee’s motion for summary judgment regarding accused infringer’s defense of intervening rights.  Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings, Inc.,No. 14-1330-WCB (D. Del. Nov… Read More

Plain and Ordinary Claim Construction

by Mark St. Amour on October 11th, 2018
In Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, No. 2017-2265 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018), the Federal Circuit construed a pair of claim terms under their plain and ordinary meaning in reversing summary judgment that Apple was n… Read More

Another Unsupported Patent Royalty Rejected

by Peter Keros on September 21st, 2018
Expert testimony on patent royalties that is unsupported by evidence is excluded. Dominion Assets LLC v. Masimo Corp., Case No. 14-cv-03002 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018). Plaintiff Dominion alleged infringement by Defendant Masimo of… Read More

Non-Patented Features and the Entire Market Value Rule

by Peter Keros on July 16th, 2018
Evidence that a patented feature drives customer demand is insufficient to justify damages under the entire market value rule (EMVR) when non-patented features may drive customer demand. Power Integrations, No. 2017-1875 (Fed. Cir… Read More

Plain and Ordinary Meaning Requires More Than a Mere Capability

by Daniel Hegner on May 9th, 2018
The Eastern District of Texas has granted-in-part Defendant HTC’s motion to strike expert testimony based on application of improper legal principles, to wit, the expert had improperly extended the plain and ordinary meaning of… Read More

Vague Development Agreement Allows Inventorship Challenge

by Peter Keros on April 26th, 2018
Can vagueness in a development agreement allow standing to question inventorship of subsequently filed patents?  The Federal Circuit held in Gregory C. James v. j2 Cloud Services, LLC, No. 2017-1506 (Fed. Cir. 2018) that an agree… Read More

Prosecution History Crucial for Claim Interpretation of “Remote”

by Mark St. Amour on April 16th, 2018
The Federal Circuit has again highlighted the importance of prosecution history for patent claim interpretation. In Baker v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2017-2357 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2018) the Federal Circuit upheld a district court claim… Read More

When Is Benefit from a System Patent Claim Infringing Use?

by Charles Bieneman on March 8th, 2018
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a district court’s rule 12(b)(6)dismissal of a complaint alleging direct patent infringement where the patent owner pled that the defendant at most benefited from the claimed system as a whole, a… Read More

Few Factual Allegations Enough to Allege Patent Infringement

by Peter Keros on February 22nd, 2018
Only a few factual allegations are required to survive a Motion to Dismiss a complaint alleging patent infringement, held the Southern District of Florida in Raptor, LLC. and Concrete Services, LLC. v. Odebrecht Construction, Inc.… Read More

MOU Overcomes Divided Patent Infringement

by Peter Keros on January 18th, 2018
How do you find a direct infringer when no one party performs all steps of a method? In Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David A. Tropp, No. 2017-1025 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2017)(precedential) (Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto presiding), the… Read More

Upcoming Webinar

Preparing and Prosecuting Functional Claims
October 23, 2019 at 12:00 pm EDT
There continues to be a dramatic impact on the interpretation of functional claim terms after the Federal Circuit decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online L.L.C. Since means-plus-function claiming can be utilized in almost every field of innovation, p…Register

Subscribe

Categories

1 2 … 6 Last »