-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Patrick J. Halloran,… on Shire Development, LLC et al.… Kevin E Noonan on Shire Development, LLC et al.… Qualities of a Good… on Edwards Life Sciences AG et al… Archives
- 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
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
- 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
- Prosecution History Estoppel
- Public Use
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Royalties
- Software
- Summary Judgment
- Trade Dress
- Trade Secret
- Trademarks
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Unjust enrichment
- Venue
- Willfullness
- Written description
Meta
- America Invents Act Anticipation (35 USC 102) Appeal Assignment / Ownership Attorney's Fees Claim Construction Claim Differentiation Collateral estoppel Damages Doctrine of equivalents Expert Testimony Generics / ANDA Indefiniteness Inducement to Infringe Inequitable Conduct Infringement Injunction Inter Parties Review (IPR) Inventorship IPR Means-plus-function Obviousness Patentability Preamble Prosecution History Estoppel Reexamination Trademarks Uncategorized Willfullness Written description
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
