Category Archives: Inducement to Infringe

Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp.

Docket No. 2018-1309 PROST, DYK, WALLACH April 8, 2019 Brief summary: DC decision finding infringement of ‘727 claim 1 affirmed; others reversed and remanded for state of mind analysis and to determine whether there were predicate acts of infringement; willfulness … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, Damages, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Willfullness | Leave a comment

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

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

Mark A. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2463 PROST, MOORE, TARANTO January 24, 2019 Brief summary: DC and jury conclusions of no invalidity and infringement affirmed (e.g., the invention was not in “public use” as the use was experimental, no § 102(b) on-sale bar, no … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Experimental Use, Inducement to Infringe, Inequitable Conduct, Infringement, Preamble, Public Use | Tagged | Leave a comment

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

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

AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2475 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO May 11, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of AHF’s request for DJ for not relating to a current “substantial controversy” affirmed. Summary: AHF appealed DC dismissal of its request for a declaratory judgment (DJ) … Continue reading

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

Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int. Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2707, -2708 PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES April 13, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding of infringement of later-issued OB patent by amended ANDA, and that method of treatment claims are patentable under § 101 affirmed. Summary: WW appealed DC holding … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Jurisdiction, Patentability, Written description | Leave a comment

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

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