This Federal Circuit Opinion[1] analyzes statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and examines offensive and defensive arguments related to § 103 obviousness. Continue Reading Don’t Get Lazy, Timely Complete Your Arguments
Federal Circuit Upholds Rifaximin Patent Rulings, Affirms ANDA Approval Restrictions
In Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2023-1952 (Fed. Cir. April 11, 2024), this case involves appellate review of a district court’s findings regarding patent obviousness and infringement in Hatch-Waxman litigation. Specifically, the Federal Circuit reviewed the lower court’s obviousness analysis for dosage regimen and polymorph patent claims, as well as its interpretation of ANDA approval resetting provisions.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Upholds Rifaximin Patent Rulings, Affirms ANDA Approval Restrictions
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’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
Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Chilisin America Ltd. Nos. 2022-1873, (Fed. Cir. October 16, 2023)
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)
Breach of FRAND Implications on ITC Exclusion Orders In View of the Public’s Interest
Imagine a scenario where the International Trade Commission (ITC) finds a respondent infringes a standard essential patent (SEP). An SEP that was included in a standard based on a voluntary promise to license it on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. What happens when the complainant has breached its FRAND obligation, and at the same time demands that the ITC exclude the alleged infringing product from the United States market? Does the Commission need to consider the circumstances surrounding the FRAND obligation when reviewing the public’s interest in excluding the product? The decade-old debate will endure on for now, but the answer may rest upon which way the current Administration’s opinion-pendulum swings.
Continue Reading Breach of FRAND Implications on ITC Exclusion Orders In View of the Public’s Interest
AIPLA’s Updated Model Patent Jury Instructions Address “Clear and Convincing” Standard of Proof & Streamline Case Citations
At every jury trial involving patent-infringement or -invalidity claims, a judge must tell jurors what the law is and how to apply it when reaching a verdict. In the legal community, patent law is known as one of the most complicated and specialized areas of law, so this is asking a lot of most judges, who have broad and vast legal knowledge, but do not typically specialize in patent law. Fortunately, organizations including the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) publish model patent jury instructions. These model instructions are helpful templates that ultimately save litigants and the public substantial resources compared to the alternative, where patent jury instructions would need to be drafted from scratch in every case.
Continue Reading AIPLA’s Updated Model Patent Jury Instructions Address “Clear and Convincing” Standard of Proof & Streamline Case Citations
Conan Doyle Estate’s Quixotic Attempt to Protect Sherlock Holmes
Led by Judge Richard Posner, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently refused what Posner called a “quixotic” attempt to extend copyright law. While the holding was perhaps to be expected, the opinion introduced a mystery of its own: If not copyright, what will stop today’s public-domain derivatives from sullying the eccentric detective’s hard-earned reputation?
Continue Reading Conan Doyle Estate’s Quixotic Attempt to Protect Sherlock Holmes