Tag Archives: federal circuit

Federal Circuit’s COVID-19 Response Brings Public Telephonic Oral Arguments and Patent Cases Decided on the Briefs

John MurphyBy John Murphy on Posted in Patent
The Federal Circuit’s April court week, held amid the COVID-19 pandemic, was like no other in the court’s history. Instead of hearing 12 oral arguments per day in its three courtrooms, the Circuit held a handful of telephonic oral arguments and decided the great majority of this month’s cases on the briefs. As a side … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Holds Lack of Efficacy Data Defeats ‘Substantial Evidence’ Showing of a Reasonable Expectation of Success Needed To Support PTAB’S Finding of Obviousness

Scott FeldmannBy Scott Feldmann on Posted in Patent
In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of obviousness invalidating a patent’s method claims for administering a drug for treating non-small cell lung (NSCLC) cancer.[1] The PTAB found that it would have been obvious to combine pharmaceutical references. The Federal Circuit, however, noted that the “asserted … Continue Reading

Proving That a Negative Claim Limitation Is Disclosed by the Prior Art: Takeaways From Two Recent Federal Circuit Opinions

Mark EinsiedelBy Mark Einsiedel on Posted in Patent
Occasionally, a patentee will seek to define its invention with claims that recite a negative claim limitation – a specialized category of claim element that recites an element that is expressly and deliberately excluded.[1] By way of example, a claim directed to a stool with the limitation that the stool is “devoid of a backrest … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Confirms the Value of Design Patents Covering Replacement Parts

Lisa N. CollinsErin CaldwellBy Lisa N. Collins and Erin Caldwell on Posted in Patent
On July 23, 2019, the Federal Circuit departed from its utility patent-focused docket to deliver a precedential opinion relating to design patents in Auto. Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Global Techns., LLC. At issue were the validity and enforceability of design patents on automotive repair and replacement parts. The case arose from a filing by … Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Weighs In on Evidentiary Considerations for Famous Marks and Analyzes Third-Party Usage

Jason OliverBy Jason Oliver on Posted in Trademark
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) erred in concluding that there is no likelihood of confusion between Omaha Steaks International’s registered trademarks and Greater Omaha Packing Company’s (Greater Omaha) GREATER OMAHA PROVIDING THE HIGHEST QUALITY BEEF trademark. Most significantly, the Federal Circuit held … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Appears to Narrow the Exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101

By Allen Sokal on Posted in Patent
Unquestionably, the narrower a patent’s claims, the more likely they are to pass muster under 35 U.S.C. § 101. But if you have an invention with broad applicability, how broadly can you claim it without running into eligibility problems? The answer, both literally and figuratively: the sky’s the limit. In Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, … Continue Reading

Patent Exhaustion Case Could Have Enormous Impact on Multinational Businesses

By Michael Stein on Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent
Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit ruled en banc in Lexmark v. Impression,[1] the most significant exhaustion ruling since the Supreme Court’s Quanta decision.[2] In response to Impression’s cert. petition, the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General. The U.S. has now filed its brief, recommending cert. be granted on both questions. … Continue Reading

A Split Panel of the Federal Circuit Debates the Standards for Definiteness

By Allen Sokal on Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent
In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co. LP, Appeal No. 2016-1013 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016), the panel, consisting of Chief Judge Prost (authoring the opinion) and Judges Newman and Bryson, unanimously reversed the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 2. But Judge Newman vigorously rejected the … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Holds PTAB Unreasonable in Denying Motion to Amend

By Allen Sokal on Posted in Federal Circuit
In Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., Appeal No. 2015-1894 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s conclusion of obviousness but vacated its denial of a conditional motion to amend and remanded for the PTAB to address the patentability of the substitute claims. The patent owner, Veritas, argued for a … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Provides Additional Guidance in Reversing Holding of Patent-Ineligibility of Biotech Invention

By Allen Sokal on Posted in Patent
Although it is not yet a bright line, the Federal Circuit has considerably decreased the fuzziness of the distinction between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible inventions, at least where the exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a law of nature. In Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. Cellzdirect, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1570 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016), the … Continue Reading

Apportioning for the Standard When Valuing Standards-Essential Patents

Kevin FlynnBy Kevin Flynn on Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), a national research organization of Australia, recently filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. CSIRO presents the following question: Is the Federal Circuit’s promulgation of rigid legal rules to control the weight to be given by the trier of fact to evidence of patent infringement damages … Continue Reading

Upcoming Federal Circuit Decision Presents Opportunity for Clarification of Patentable Subject Matter

Brendan ClarkBy Brendan Clark on Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent
Since Alice,[1] consistently defining the bounds of statutory subject matter in computer arts confounds even the most experienced attorneys. E-commerce software combining visual elements of multiple parties’ websites is patent eligible,[2] but a motion-tracking system claiming inertial sensors is not.[3] While the results have cut sharply against patent holders asserting or prosecuting software properties, legal … Continue Reading
LexBlog