In Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. 2021-2299, 2021-2338 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patent infringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. It found that the lower court erred by failing to instruct the jury that “comparison prior art” must be tied to the same article of manufacture as that claimed.
Continue Reading “Comparison Prior Art” Must Be Tied to the Same Article of Manufacture as That Claimed
Intellectual Property Law Blog
Up-to-date Information on Intellectual Property Law
Latest from Intellectual Property Law Blog - Page 2
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Ruling of Obviousness for the Colorization of Fabrics
In Jodi A. Schwendimann, fka Jodi A. Dalvey, v. Neenah, Inc., Avery Products Corporation, No. 2022-1333, 2022-1334, 2022-1427, 2022-1432 (Fed. Cir. October 6, 2023) (“Opinion”), the case addresses whether there was substantial evidence to support that a person of ordinary skill in the art had motivation and a reasonable expectation of success in combining references to render obvious the incorporation of a white pigment of a first reference to the layers of a transfer sheet of a second reference to improve the transfer of images onto dark fabrics.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Ruling of Obviousness for the Colorization of Fabrics
Federal Circuit Vacates Invalidity Judgement Based on Collateral Estoppel from a Case Subsequently Vacated and Rebukes Plaintiff’s About-Face on Its Stipulated Claim Construction
In Finjan LLC, FKA Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., No. 2022-1048 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a summary judgement of invalidity based on collateral estoppel, where the case that provided estoppel was subsequently vacated. The Federal Circuit also examined various arguments attempting to circumvent an agreed-upon claim construction as well as the district court’s application of that construction in finding non-infringement, and the propriety of excluding expert testimony that failed to analyze apportionment of sub-features of the accused products.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Vacates Invalidity Judgement Based on Collateral Estoppel from a Case Subsequently Vacated and Rebukes Plaintiff’s About-Face on Its Stipulated Claim Construction
Federal Circuit Clarifies Standards to Establish Nexus Between Objective Evidence and Non-Obviousness, and to Establish Copying in Medtronic et al. v. Teleflex Innovations
In this case, the Federal Circuit determined the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a nexus between objective evidence and non-obviousness; and to establish the objective indicia of copying.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Standards to Establish Nexus Between Objective Evidence and Non-Obviousness, and to Establish Copying in Medtronic et al. v. Teleflex Innovations
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Ruling of Swearing Behind a Prior Art Reference
In Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L., the case addresses whether the final written decisions in a consolidated inter partes appeal (“IPR”) correctly found that U.S. Patent 7,736,355 (“the ’355 patent”) does not qualify as prior art to related U.S. Patents 8,048,032, RE45,380, RE45,776, RE45,760, and RE47,379 (collectively, “the challenged patents”) under pre-AIA’s first-to-invent provisions.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Ruling of Swearing Behind a Prior Art Reference
Petitioner Failed to Establish Standing in IPR Appeal
Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC addresses whether an IPR petitioner can assert Article III standing on appeal based on potential infringement liability and potential preclusive effects on its patents.
Continue Reading Petitioner Failed to Establish Standing in IPR Appeal
Axonics v. Medtronic
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decisions because the PTAB erred in its obviousness analysis and found that Axonics failed to show a motivation to combine as to Medtronic’s ‘314 and ‘756 patents.
Continue Reading Axonics v. Medtronic
Federal Circuit Weighs in on Relevance of Primary Reference’s Intended Purpose to a POSITA’s Motivation to Combine
In Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Vascular, Inc., v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L., the case addresses the weight the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should give to the intended purpose of a primary reference when evaluating a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art’s (POSITA) motivation to combine that primary reference with secondary references.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Weighs in on Relevance of Primary Reference’s Intended Purpose to a POSITA’s Motivation to Combine
Federal Circuit Vacates District Court’s Claim Construction of the Term “Pipette Guiding Mechanism”
In Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA Instruments-Waters LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed the proper construction of the claim term “pipette guiding mechanism.” Specifically, the Federal Circuit found the plain and ordinary meaning of “pipette guiding mechanism” sufficient and addressed how various claim construction doctrines affected its analysis, including the use of a non-related patent cited in an IDS as intrinsic evidence.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Vacates District Court’s Claim Construction of the Term “Pipette Guiding Mechanism”
PTAB’s Decision of a Singular-Only Construction of the Term “The Sample Stream” Reversed
In ABS Global, Inc., Genus plc v. Cytonome/ST, LLC, the case addresses a claim construction issue regarding whether a claim term is plural-allowing.
Continue Reading PTAB’s Decision of a Singular-Only Construction of the Term “The Sample Stream” Reversed
Federal Circuit Evaluates Impact of the Final Written Decision (FWD) in a Parallel Inter-Partes Review (IPR) on District Court’s decision of Invalidity and Infringement
In United Therapeutics Corp. v Liquidia Tech Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision on invalidity and infringement of two pharmaceutical patents and the impact of the Final Written Decision (FWD) in a parallel inter-partes review (IPR) upon the district court’s decision.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Evaluates Impact of the Final Written Decision (FWD) in a Parallel Inter-Partes Review (IPR) on District Court’s decision of Invalidity and Infringement
Second Circuit Finds Art Collective Can’t Use First Amendment to Skate Out of Injunction
In its first opportunity to apply the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products LLC, which held that the First Amendment did not protect infringing works that “use [the complainant’s] mark [ ] as a mark,” the Second Circuit upheld an Eastern District of New York order enjoining art collective MSCHF from offering its “Wavy Baby” sneaker that likely infringed Vans’ marquee “Old Skool” sneaker. See Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Prod. Studio, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 3d 358 (E.D.N.Y. 2022). The Vans case and appeal had both been stayed pending the outcome of Jack Daniel’s.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Finds Art Collective Can’t Use First Amendment to Skate Out of Injunction
Will Supreme Court Consider Whether to Allow an Alternative to In-App Purchasing on the App Store?
App developers who pay 30% commission fee to Apple via In-App Purchasing should take note of an important legal decision recently presented to the Supreme Court for possible review. The Supreme Court’s decision whether to take the case, and its ultimate decision if it does take the case, will directly affect the commission that developers must pay Apple to sell their products using the App Store. In particular, Apple has asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of a permanent injunction issued against it by a lower federal court in the Northern District of California in Epic Games, Inc. …
Continue Reading Will Supreme Court Consider Whether to Allow an Alternative to In-App Purchasing on the App Store?
Federal Circuit’s Determination on Whether Fraudulent Conduct in Obtaining Incontestable Status Warrants the Mark’s Cancellation
In Great Concepts, LLC, v. Chutter, Inc., the Federal Circuit decided on whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can cancel a trademark based on the inclusion of false statements in a declaration to obtain an incontestable status for the trademark.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit’s Determination on Whether Fraudulent Conduct in Obtaining Incontestable Status Warrants the Mark’s Cancellation
Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB’s Decision Based on an Overly Narrow Claim Construction
In Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, LTD., the court addressed two final written decisions in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings and in particular (1) whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) claim construction is correct when the intrinsic evidence supports a different construction and relatedly whether the PTAB’s first final written decision relying on its claim construction should be vacated and remanded and (2) whether, in the second final written decision, the PTAB’s reliance on an invalidity ground not raised by any party should be vacated and remanded.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB’s Decision Based on an Overly Narrow Claim Construction
Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. Nos. 2022-1532, 2022-1533, (Fed. Cir. August 7, 2023)
This case addresses the ability of a petitioner in an IPR to present new evidence in a reply brief, particularly where the patent owner proposes a new claim construction in its patent owner response.
Continue Reading Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. Nos. 2022-1532, 2022-1533, (Fed. Cir. August 7, 2023)