Category Archives: Contributory Infringement

ITC findings that 10X does not infringe one Bio-Rad patent but does infringe others affirmed

Posted on June 2, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (10X Genomics Inc.) 10X Genomics Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.) Docket No. 2020-1475, -1605 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1475.OPINION.5-28-2021_1784059.pdf) NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK May 28, 2021 Brief Summary:  ITC claim construction and infringement (no and … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Contributory Infringement, Infringement | Leave a comment

Grunenthal Gmbh et al. v. Alkem Labs. Ltd., Hikma Pharm., Actavis et al.

Posted on April 2, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1153, -2048-50 REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN March 28, 2019 Brief summary: DC decisions of nonobviousness of Grunenthal’s polymorph claims, no induced or contributory infringement due to section viii carve-out, and specific utility of the claimed polymorph affirmed. Summary: Alkem … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Contributory Infringement, Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Inherency, Obviousness, Utility | Leave a comment

Enplas Display Device Corp. et al. v. Seoul Semiconductor Company, Ltd.

Posted on December 5, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2016-2599 NEWMAN, HUGHES, STOLL Nov. 19, 2018 Brief summary: DC findings of no anticipation affirmed; damages award vacated (e.g., “damages calculated by applying a royalty rate to sales of non-accused lenses cannot support a jury’s verdict on damages”). … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Contributory Infringement, Damages, Inducement to Infringe, Royalties | Leave a comment

Nalco Company v. Chem-Med, LLC et al. (24 other parties)

Posted on February 28, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1036 MOORE, SCHALL, O’MALLEY February 27, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of Nalco’s complaint for failing to properly allege infringement reversed and remanded since “[t]he ‘purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Contributory Infringement, Doctrine of equivalents, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment

Sanofi, et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Sandoz Inc.

Posted on November 14, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2722, -2726 PROST, WALLACH, TARANTO November 9, 2017 Brief summary: DC decision finding inducement to infringe based on proposed drug label, no obviousness in view of prior art clinical trial documents, or prosecution history estoppel affirmed. Summary: Sanofi … Continue reading →

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. ITC / Arista Networks, Inc. v. ITC

Posted on October 24, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2016-2563, -2539 REYNA, SCHALL, WALLACH September 27, 2017 Brief summary: ITC decision that Arista’s importation of switches lacking software infringed (induced and contributory) Cisco’s patents affirmed. Summary: This decision relates to the ITC’s § 337 investigation based on … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. OSMI, Inc. et al. (“Stellar”)

Posted on September 19, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2641 MOORE, REYNA, STOLL September 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since Stellar only took action against Allied’s distributors in MX but no action against Allied (in MX or the US). Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Article III disputes, Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment

Lifetime Industries, Inv. V. Trim-Lok, Inc.

Posted on September 14, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

2017-1096 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY September 7, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of Trim-Lok’s motion to dismiss Lifetime’s infringement complaint reversed and remanded since, e.g., LT adequately “alleged that an agent of Trim-Lok installed the seal onto the RV”. Summary: Lifetime … Continue reading →

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement | Leave a comment

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation et al. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC

Posted on June 20, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1766 LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH June 16, 2017 Brief Summary: Patent directed at detecting myeloperoxidase release as a sign of cardiovascular disease ineligible under § 101. DC decision of no contributory or induced infringement affirmed since CCF fell “short … Continue reading →

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rivera et al. v. International Trade Commission and Solofill, LLC (Intervenor)

Posted on May 24, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1841 REYNA, LINN, CHEN May 23, 2017 Brief Summary: ITC decision of no § 337 violation because the asserted claims to a beverage brewer are invalid for lack of written description affirmed. Summary: Rivera appealed ITC holding that … Continue reading →

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Importation, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Written description | Leave a comment