The sufficiency of evidence required to support a denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial for infringement, willful infringement, and damages.Continue Reading Slicing Through Insufficient Evidence of Infringement, Willfulness, and Damages
Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. (collectively, “Celanese”) filed a petition before the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), alleging that Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., Jinhe USA LLC (collectively “Jinhe”) and other entities violated 19 U.S.C. § 337.[1] Celanese alleged that Jinhe and other entities were importing Ace-K (an artificial sweetener) made using a process that infringed Celanese’s patents. Each of the patents asserted by Celanese had an effective filing date of September 21, 2016, and as a result are governed by the America Invents Act (“AIA”).Continue Reading Celanese v. ITC: How the On-Sale Bar Can Turn Sweet Sales into Spoiled Patents
In Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited, 2023-1194 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2024), the Federal Circuit reaffirms that a patent claim that includes narrowing limitations requiring only some elements of a Markush group recited in the same claim are not indefinite under Section 112 so long as the claim, when read as a whole, is internally consistent and supported by the specification.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Finds that a Narrowing Claim Limitation that Expressly Requires Optional Elements of a Markush Group from the Same Claim is Neither Contradictory Nor Indefinite
In CyWee Group LTD. V. ZTE (USA), Inc., No. 21-1855 (Fed. Cir. 2024), ZTE filed an IPR petition against U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 (the ’438 patent) owned by CyWee, which the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“the Board”) instituted. LG later filed a separate IPR petition also challenging the ’438 patent and moved to join ZTE’s IPR. LG acknowledged that its IPR petition was untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because CyWee sued LG more than a year before LG filed its petition. LG premised its request for joinder on several limitations, the most relevant of which was that LG would act only as a passive understudy and not assume an active role in the IPR unless ZTE ceased to participate in the instituted IPR.Continue Reading Navigating Revised Motions to Amend in Inter Partes Review as a Non-active, Joined Party