Category Archives: Expert Testimony

Board denial of IPR dismissal after Arthrex II, claim construction, and invalidity decisions affirmed

Posted on September 28, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Polaris Innovations Limited v. USPTO Docket No. 2019-1483 (IPR2017-01500), 2019-1484 (IPR2017-00901) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1483.OPINION.9-15-2022_2004261.pdf) PROST, CHEN, STOLL September 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board denial of join request to dismiss IPRs following Arthrex II, claim construction (BRC as pre-Nov. 23, 2018), and … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Expert Testimony, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

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

Posted on May 18, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on May 12, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on April 21, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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)

Posted on April 20, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on April 19, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on March 2, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on February 6, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on January 17, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on May 15, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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