Monthly Archives: April 2015

Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC

Posted on April 30, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1167 Reyna, Wallach, Taranto April 24, 2015 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ awarding zero royalty reversed; grant of SJ regarding inducement to infringe (“affirmative act to encourage infringement with the knowledge…actual knowledge or willful blindness”) reversed; DC … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Inducement to Infringe, Royalties | Leave a comment

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

Posted on April 28, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1289 Newman, Schall, Wallach April 27, 2015 Brief Summary: On reconsideration after remand from the USSC requiring review under the “reasonable certainty” standard (as opposed to previous “not amendable to construction” or “insolubly ambiguous’” standards), DC decision of … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Technologies Corporation

Posted on April 27, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1528 REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO April 24, 2015 Brief Summary: DC claim construction of the term “transmit” reversed as being limited to a preferred embodiment. Summary: Info-Hold appealed DC decision that AMTC does not infringe US 5,991,374 relating to … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

In Re: Simon Shiao Tam

Posted on April 21, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1203 Lourie, Moore, O’Malley Decided April 20, 2015 Update: On April 27, 2015, the court reinstated the appeal and will hear the case en banc. Brief Summary: PTO refusal to register the trademark THE SLANTS as being disparaging … Continue reading →

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

In Re: TriVita, Inc.

Posted on April 20, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1383 Newman, Moore, Hughes Decided April 17, 2015 Brief Summary: FC concluded “that the relevant consumer, knowing that the goods are supplements containing nopal cactus juice, would understand the mark NOPALEA to convey information that the goods contain … Continue reading →

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

Ineos USA, LLC v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Posted on April 17, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1540 DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY April 16, 2015 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for anticipation affirmed in part because questions regarding the criticality of the claimed ranges to the problem being solved were not raised. Summary: Ineos appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Oplus Technologies, Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc. et al.

Posted on April 16, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1297 PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY April 10, 2015 Brief Summary: DC decision refusing to award fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and § 28 USC 1927 vacated and remanded in view of Octane Fitness (US 2014). Summary: Vizio appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee (USPTO)

Posted on April 15, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1728 PROST, TARANTO, FOGEL (DJ) April 10, 2015 Brief Summary: Consent judgment found not to require PTO to terminate reexamination of litigated patents; not appealable as PTO decision not to terminate is not a “final decision” under the … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal | Leave a comment

Vasudevan Software, Inc. (“VSi”) v. Microstrategy, Inc. et al. (“MS”)

Posted on April 13, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1094 CHEN, LINN, HUGHES April 3, 2015 Brief Summary: Claim construction determination based on prosecution history affirmed (applies 2015 SCOTUS Teva decision). Grant of SJ on written description and enablement reversed as expert testimony was not simply conclusory … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement, Written description | Leave a comment

Insite Vision Inc. (“Pfizer”) v. Sandoz, Inc.

Posted on April 10, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2014-1065 PROST, NEWMAN, LINN April 9, 2015 Brief Summary: FC found no clear error or abuse of discretion in its conclusions that the patents-in-suit were not obvious (prior art “discloses a ‘laundry list of active ingredients’” and expert … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment