This case is primarily about the Daubert standard as applied to expert testimony on damages. The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California’s admission of expert testimony on damages, which relied on calculations that failed to differentiate between infringing products and non-infringing products. The Federal Circuit also reiterated the standards for a judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of non-obviousness, and clarified that “by means of” claim language does not limit to but-for causation, i.e., it does not mean “by the exclusive means of.”Continue Reading Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Chilisin America Ltd. Nos. 2022-1873, (Fed. Cir. October 16, 2023)
Don Geiger is an associate in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's San Diego (Del Mar) office.
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)
This case addresses the legal framework for determining whether prior art anticipates a claimed range. The appropriate legal framework applies a different test depending on whether the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range vs. a range overlapping the claimed range.Continue Reading UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. No. 2021-1924, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March 31, 2023.Continue Reading 2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries