Monthly Archives: December 2014

Hoyt A. Fleming v. Escort Inc. and Beltronics USA, Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1331, -1371 TARANTO, BRYSON, HUGHES December 24, 2014 Brief Summary: Evidence of prior invention was found to be sufficient and there was no evidence “suppression, concealment, or abandonment” between conception and reduction to practive. Fleming’s failure to “appreciate … Continue reading

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Reissue | Leave a comment

Top 2014 science stories from Science Magazine!

It’s not from The Federal Circuit, but check out Science’s top 2014 stories

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al. Diebold, Incorporated v. Content Extraction and Transmission LLC et al.

Docket No. 2013-1588, -1589, 2014-1112, -1687 DYK, TARANTO, CHEN December 23, 2014 Brief Summary: CET’s methods deemed invalid under 35 USC § 101 (“There is no ‘inventive concept’ in CET’s use of a generic scanner and computer to perform well-understood, … Continue reading

Posted in Business methods, Patentability | Leave a comment

Aqua Shield v. Inter Pool Cover Team et al.

Docket No. 2013-1668 PROST, NEWMAN, HUGHES December 19, 2014 Brief Summary: Actual profits are not a cap on a reasonably royalty. The DC erred in not considering willfulness under the Seagate standards. Summary: Aqua Shield appealed DC royalty determination (set … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2013-1593, -1594, -1595, -1598 O’MALLEY, WALLACH, TARANTO February 24, 2014 Brief Summary: Term “solvate” found not to require any “performance property…and hence raises no issue of insufficnet structural, creation-process, or other descriptions to support such a property” (e.g., … Continue reading

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

Docket No. 2013-1400, -1401 PROST, LOURIE, LINN August 29, 2014 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board agreement with examiner’s final rejection affirmed because prior art disclosure would not require “substantial reengineering”, there was no teaching away, and the secondary considerations were unpersuasive … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, Reexamination, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Stryker Corp. et al. v. Zimmer et al.

Docket No. 2013-1668 PROST, NEWMAN, HUGHES December 19, 2014 Update: SCOTUS cert. granted 10/19/15 Brief Summary: Findings of infringement affirmed but willfulness determination reversed because “Zimmer presented reasonable defenses to all of the asserted claims of Stryker’s patents”. Summary: Zimmer … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, Infringement, Willfullness | Leave a comment

In re BRCA1- and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation Univ. Utah Res. Found. et al. (“Myriad”) v. Ambry Genetics Corp.

Docket No. 2014-1361, -1366 PROST, CLEVENGER, DYK December 17, 2014 Brief Summary: Myriad’s primer pair composition claims found patent ineligible as “structurally identical to the ends of DNA strands found in nature”. Its method claims found patent ineligible under the … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research v. Michelle K. Lee and USPTO

Docket No. 2013-1678, 2014-1014 PROST, DYK, TARANTO December 9, 2014 Brief Summary: PTO denial of withdrawal of Attorney’s erroneously filed terminal disclaimer not arbitrary or capricious as PTO determined miscommunications between the Foundation and its attorney of record did not … Continue reading

Posted in Disclaimers | Leave a comment

Promega Corp. et al. v. Life Technologies Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2013-1011, -1029, -1376 PROST(D), MAYER, CHEN December 15, 2014 Update, SCOTUS opinion (2/22/17): FC erred in its decision as “[t]he supply of a single component of a multi-component invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Infringement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment