Posts Tagged: CACF


Where parties dispute proper scope of claims, Board must provide an explicit claim construction

The Board declined to provide a construction of “settling speed” and determined that the claims were not invalid as anticipated. Homeland appealed... When parties dispute the proper …

Board’s analysis internally inconsistent, Federal Circuit vacates inter partes reexam

At the Federal Circuit, Honeywell argued that the Board erred in (1) finding a motivation to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success, (2) rejecting Honeywell’s …

Inherent obviousness necessitates specific motivation to modify lead compound in pharma process due to surprising, unexpected results

Inherent obviousness cannot be based on what the inventor thought, and, in addition, the results in a particular case may not be inherently obvious depending on what …
By Jay S. Pattumudi
10 months ago 2

Federal Circuit invalidates another patent upheld at PTAB after IPR

The Federal Circuit issued a decision in Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation, which ought to be completely unnerving to every owner of a U.S. patent …
By Steve Brachmann & Gene Quinn
10 months ago 11

Federal Circuit says Will.i.am not allowed to trademark I AM

William Adams is the well-known front man for the music group The Black Eyed Peas and is known as will.i.am. Adams’ company – i.am.symbolic, …
By Gene Quinn
10 months ago 0

Federal Circuit returns dispute over Dale Earnhardt trademark rights back to USPTO

The Federal Circuit heard the case of Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., where Teresa Earnhardt appealed from the dismissal of its opposition to the trademark registration of …

Further Study Does Not Undermine Reasonable Expectation of Success; ‘Absolute Predictability’ is Not Required

A reasonable expectation of success in combining references to obtain the claimed invention does not require absolute certainty or predictability. As a result, an invention is not …

Inherency in Obviousness – What is the Correct Standard?

Although the distinction between inherency in obviousness and anticipation is sometimes blurred, the two concepts are quite different and a claim may be inherently anticipated without being …

Federal Circuit declares Regeneron patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct

The Federal Circuit issued a decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V. upholding the determination that the patent owned by biotech firm Regeneron was unenforceable. …
By Steve Brachmann & Gene Quinn
10 months ago 0

Infringer Profits in Design Patent Cases

In the calculation of design patent infringer profits, two key issues are the definition of the article of manufacture and the methodology for calculating total infringer profits... …
By Mark Pedigo
10 months ago 0

Revising Section 101 of the Patent Act: What’s at Stake?

These revisions favor patent owners, according to Palmer, but not everyone is supportive. For instance, Bilski, Mayo, Myriad, and Alice have given several accused infringers an additional …
By Amanda G. Ciccatelli
10 months ago 23

Breadth through Specificity: Supporting Alternative Embodiments with Multiple Examples in Patent Applications

Two recent cases, The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc and Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc., illustrate that the patentee’s specification is key to determining whether …
By Matthew Kinnier & Emily Dubuc
10 months ago 3

Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Considerations

Obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) is a judicially created doctrine aimed at preventing patent owners from extending patent protection beyond the statutorily afforded term. Prior to the Uruguay …
By Aaron Reinhardt
10 months ago 1

Causal-nexus for a permanent injunction only requires ‘some connection’ to infringement

The district court denied a request for a permanent injunction against Metaswitch after a jury found infringement because Genband failed to establish irreparable harm. More specifically, the …

CAFC Reverses and Remands Attorney’s Fees Issue in Newegg’s Favor

The district court made clearly erroneous factual findings that independently supported reversal. Particularly, the record supported a finding that this case was exceptional given the weakness of …