Monthly Archives: October 2014

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. et al.

Posted on October 24, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1462, -1656 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, HUGHES October 22, 2014 Brief Summary: No direct infringement by disputed products were ordered, manufactured, shipped, delivered and paid for abroad despite pricing and contracting negotiations in the US. Direct infringement by sales of … Continue reading →

Posted in Importation, Infringement, Procedural Issues | Leave a comment

Cardsoft, LLC v. Verifone, Inc. et al.

Posted on October 22, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2014-1135 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 17, 2014 Brief Summary: The FC panel concluded “the district court erred by failing to give ‘virtual machine’ its ordinary and customary meaning”. It therefore reversed the DC claim construction and granted Verifone … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement | Leave a comment

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (2nd UPDATE)

Posted on October 21, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., petition for rehearing en banc (denied) October 20, 2014 Request for certiorari denied May 6, 2015 (14-886) Summary: Bristol-Myers’ petition for rehearing en banc of the finding that claim 8 of its … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. et al.

Posted on October 20, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1419, -1420 LOURIE, LINN, O’MALLEY October 14, 2014 Brief Summary: SSL’s request for a new trial based on claim construction of a first patent claim denied since claims and specification supported the same. DC determination of willful infringement … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Infringement, Reexamination, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Incorporated et al.

Posted on October 16, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1040 PROST, TARANTO, HUGHES October 14, 2014 Brief Summary: Strong presumption of no means-plus-function of “device” terms overcome because “[t]he claim terms, construed in light of the specification, fail to provide sufficiently definite structure to one of skill … Continue reading →

Posted in Means-plus-function, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Benefit Funding Systems LLC et al. v. Regions Financial Corp. et al.

Posted on October 8, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1122, -1124, -1125 PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES September 25, 2014 Brief Summary: DC grant of stay in litigation pending PTO review of claims under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents to determine patentability under 35 U.S.C. § … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Business methods, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

In re Taylor Made Golf Co.

Posted on October 7, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1552 DYK, O’MALLEY September 30, 2014 Non-precedential Brief Summary: PTAB decision of non-obviousness vacated and remanded because it did “not consider the prior art in the context of the background knowledge”. Summary: After an inter partes reexamination, Taylor … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Apotex, Inc. et al. v. UCB, Inc. et al.

Posted on October 3, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1674 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES August 15, 2014 Brief Summary: Patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by inventor and through his prosecuting attorney and expert witness, including an admission at trial that experiments described in the application were “made … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inequitable Conduct | Leave a comment

American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Posted on October 1, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1061 PROST, NEWMAN (d), WALLACH September 26, 2014 Brief Summary: Inequitable conduct found where entirety of material information was not disclosed and DC determined “the only reasonable inference [was] that [he] knew the prior art was material to … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct | Leave a comment