Category Archives: Expert Testimony

Claim construction affirmed, Hulu’s SJ grant of noninfringement vacated and remanded; damages testimony exclusion affirmed

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC Docket No. 2021-1998 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1998.OPINION.5-11-2022_1950301.pdf) PROST, MAYER, TARANTO May 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed but SJ grant of noninfringement vacated and remanded; exclusion of certain damages testimony affirmed. Summary:  Sound … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Disclaimers, Expert Testimony, Prosecution History Estoppel, Software | Leave a comment

DC denial of on-sale bar defense reversed; claim construction affirmed; grant of enhanced damages reversed based on attorney opinion; reasonably royalty affirmed

Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc. et al. (“Venture”) Docket No. 2020-1640, -1641 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1640.OPINION.4-29-2022_1943607.pdf) PROST, REYNA, STOLL April 29, 2022 Brief Summary:  DC denial of on-sale bar defense reversed; claim construction affirmed; grant of enhanced damages … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Experimental Use, Expert Testimony, Infringement, Lost Profits, On-Sale Bar, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ reversed and remanded due to improper finding of indefiniteness

Niazi Licensing Corporation v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. Docket No. 2021-1864 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1864.OPINION.4-11-2022_1934126.pdf) TARANTO, BRYSON, STOLL April 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC findings of indefiniteness reversed, but induced infringement, exclusion of expert witness report and damages findings affirmed. Summary:  … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Medical Devices, Method claims, Prosecution History Estoppel, Royalties, Written description | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ reversed as based on improper claim construction (no clear PHE)

Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Nintendo Co. et al. Docket No. 2021-2167 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2167.OPINION.4-1-2022_1930021.pdf) NEWMAN, REYNA, STOLL April 1, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC grant of summary judgment reversed as FC panel found claim construction errors. Summary:  Genuine sued Nintendo for … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Expert Testimony, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Sharp and Vizio not shown to infringe Wi-Lan’s flicker effect patents, FC panel affirmed

Wi-Lan Inc. v. Sharp Electronics Corporation, Vizio, Inc. Docket No. 2020-1041, -1043 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1041.OPINION.4-6-2021_1759180.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES April 6, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ of non-infringement and claim construction findings affirmed. Summary:  Wi-Lan appealed DC finding that neither Sharp … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Expert Testimony, Infringement | Leave a comment

Acoustic’s IPR time-bar arguments waived; anticipation and obviousness findings affirmed

Acoustic Technology, Inc. v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1061 (IPR2017-1061) (see also FC Docket Nos. 2019-1059, -1060) MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO February 13, 2020 Brief Summary: Appeal based on time-bar arguments not presented to the Board were waived; anticipation … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Appeal, Expert Testimony, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

“Lay witness” not qualified as an expert cannot testify as to conclusion of obviousness

HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC, Scott D. Fleischman Docket No. 2019-1649 NEWMAN, MOORE, CHEN February 5, 2020 Brief Summary: DC’s limiting jury instructions regarding obviousness because “lay witness” was not qualified as an expert. Summary: HVO appealed DC denial … Continue reading

Posted in Expert Testimony, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC

Docket Nos. 2016-2197 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL January 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision vacated and remanded as expert opinion on damages was insufficient, and to determine whether Briggs’ prior art defenses were “litigation-inspired” (Halo, US 2017). Summary: Briggs appealed the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Laches, Obviousness, Reexamination, Willfullness | Leave a comment

NOVA Chemicals Corporation, et al. v. Dow Chemical Company

Docket No. 2016-1576 DYK, MAYER, REYNA May 11, 2017 Brief Summary: DC award of attorney fees to Dow affirmed as NOVA’s litigation position was found to be “objectively baseless” under Octane Fitness (US 2014). Summary: NOVA appealed DC award of … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Attorney's Fees, Expert Testimony | Leave a comment

Coalition for Affordable Drugs X LLC (“CAD”) v. Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

IPR2015-02776 (US 7,582,621B2) Final Written Decision February 23, 2017 Brief Summary: Board found CAD had shown invalidity for obviousness of the ‘621 claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Summary: CAD petitioned for IPR of Anacor’s US 7,582,621 B2 on … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Expert Testimony, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment