-
Recent Posts
- Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.
- Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Intersil Corporation et al.
- Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.
- Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int., et al.
Recent Comments
Categories
- America Invents Act
- Analgous Art
- Anticipation (35 USC 102)
- Antitrust
- Appeal
- Arbitration
- Article III disputes
- Assignment / Ownership
- Attorney's Fees
- Best mode
- Biosimilars
- Business methods
- Certificate of Correction
- Claim
- Claim Construction
- Claim Differentiation
- Claim Preclusion
- Claim Vitiation
- Collateral estoppel
- Conception and Reduction to Practice
- Contributory Infringement
- Copyright
- Covered Business Method Reviews
- Damages
- Derivation of Invention
- Design Patents
- Diligence
- Disclaimers
- Discovery
- Doctrine of equivalents
- Double Patenting
- Enablement
- Equitable estoppel
- Expert Testimony
- False Marking
- Functional limitations
- Generics / ANDA
- Importation
- Indefiniteness
- Inducement to Infringe
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Inherency
- Injunction
- Inter Parties Review (IPR)
- Interference
- International Trade Commission
- Inventorship
- IPR
- Issue Preclusion
- Jurisdiction
- Laches
- Licensing
- Lost Profits
- Malpractice
- Means-plus-function
- Method claims
- Negative Limitations
- Obviousness
- Obviousness-Teaching Away
- On-Sale Bar
- Patent Exhaustion
- Patent Marking
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Term Extension
- Patentability
- Post-grant review
- Preamble
- Priority
- Privilege
- Procedural Issues
- Product-by-Process
- Prosecution History Estoppel
- Public Use
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Royalties
- Software
- Summary Judgment
- Trade Dress
- Trade Secret
- Trademarks
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Unenforceability
- Unjust enrichment
- Venue
- Willfullness
- Written description
Archives
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- July 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Meta
- America Invents Act Anticipation (35 USC 102) Appeal Assignment / Ownership Attorney's Fees Claim Construction Claim Differentiation Collateral estoppel Damages Doctrine of equivalents Generics / ANDA Indefiniteness Inducement to Infringe Inequitable Conduct Infringement Injunction Inter Parties Review (IPR) Inventorship IPR Means-plus-function Obviousness Obviousness-Teaching Away Patentability Prosecution History Estoppel Reexamination Software Trademarks Uncategorized Willfullness Written description
Copyright Notice
© Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D. and lifescienceip.wordpress.com, [2011-2017]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D. and lifescienceip.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Category Archives: Design Patents
Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Company
Docket No. 2015-1553 MOORE, HUGHES, STOLL April 19, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim construction rejected “because it eliminates whole aspects of the claimed design”. DC exclusion of expert witness found not to be an abuse of discretion because of his … Continue reading
Nordock, Inc. v. Systems, Inc. et al.
Docket No. 2014-1762, -1795 O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN September 29, 2015 Brief Summary: DC/jury damages award reversed and remanded since “a design patentee can recover either (1) total profits from the infringer’s sale under § 289, or (2) damages in the … Continue reading
Posted in Damages, Design Patents
Leave a comment
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. et al. v. Covidien, Inc. et al.
Docket No. 2014-1370 LOURIE, BRYSON, CHEN August 7, 2015 Brief Summary: DC finding of invalidity of ‘501 patent for indefiniteness reversed; claim construction of ‘275 patent affirmed but grant of SJ vacated as evidence of genuine dispute considered in favor … Continue reading
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. et al.
Docket No. 2014-1335, 2015-1529 PROST, O’MALLEY, CHEN May 18, 2015 Update (Dec. 6, 2016 Adn Feb. 7, 2017): SCOTUS reversed DC/FC § 289 design patent damages award of Samsung’s entire profits on infringing smartphones, holding “[i]n the case of a … Continue reading
Posted in Damages, Design Patents, Trade Dress, Trademarks
Leave a comment
MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP
Docket No. 2013-1433 RADER, PROST, CHEN April 2, 2014 Brief Summary: DC decisions of invalidity for obviousness of design patents encompassing football and baseball jerseys for dogs affirmed in view of appropriate primary and secondary references. Summary: MRC appealed DC … Continue reading
Posted in Design Patents, Obviousness
Leave a comment
High Point Design LLC et al. v. Buyers Direct, Inc.
Docket No. 2012-1455 O’MALLEY, SCHALL, WALLACH September 11, 2013 Brief summary: Grant of SJ that design patent was invalid for obviousness and primarily functional reversed for improper analyses and dismissal of trade dress claims vacated. Summary: Buyer’s Direct, Inc. (BDI) … Continue reading
Posted in Design Patents
Leave a comment
