Category Archives: Inducement to Infringe

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 decisions of induced infringement of patent asserted by Meso and non-infringement of non-asserted patents as requested by Roche vacated and remanded

Posted on April 15, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Roche Diagnostics Corp., Bioveris Corp. v. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC Docket No. 2021-1609, -1633 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1609.OPINION.4-8-2022_1933410.pdf) NEWMAN (D), PROST, TARANTO April 8, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC findings of induced infringement of patents asserted by Meso and non-infringement of non-asserted patents … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Damages, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Licensing | Leave a comment

Teva’s ANDA carve-out does not save it from induced infringement (“when the provider of an identical product knows of and markets the same product for intended direct infringing activity, the criteria of induced infringement are met”) (petition for rehearing en banc denied (2/11/22))

Posted on February 24, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1976, -2023 PROST, NEWMAN, MOORE October 2, 2020 Update (2/11/22):  Petition for rehearing denied.  Judges Moore, Newman, O’Malley, Taranto, Chen and Stoll concurred to address dissents by Judges Prost, … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe | Leave a comment

DC finding that Polymetrix did not induce importation of samples into the US affirmed

Posted on December 27, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Alpek Polyester, S.A., DAK Americas LLC, et al. v. Polymetrix AG Docket No. 2021-1706 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1706.OPINION.12-16-2021_1880727.pdf) (Non-precedential) LOURIE, O’MALLEY, STOLL December 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ of no induced infringement by importation affirmed. Summary:  Alpek/DAK appealed DC grant … Continue reading →

Posted in Importation, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Licensing | Leave a comment

DC ineligibility decision erroneous as claims not “solely directed to the printed matter”

Posted on November 23, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

C. R. Bard, et al. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1756, -1934 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1756.OPINION.11-10-2020_1683097.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, STOLL November 10, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC erroneously granted JMOL based on expert mistake and conclusion that printed matter made claims patent ineligible under section … Continue reading →

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Induced infringement decision reversed (“subjective bad faith”); eligibility decision affirmed (“improving a basic function of a computer”)

Posted on October 27, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., et al. Docket No. 2019-2192, -2258 PROST, REYNA, TARANTO October 23, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC incorrectly excluded evidence of induced infringement (“subjective bad faith”) but correctly found patent eligibility (“directed to improving a basic function … Continue reading →

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Patent Eligibility (101), Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Teva’s ANDA carve-out does not save it from induced infringement (“when the provider of an identical product knows of and markets the same product for intended direct infringing activity, the criteria of induced infringement are met”)

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1976, -2023 PROST, NEWMAN, MOORE October 2, 2020 Brief Summary:  GSK appealed DC judgment of a matter of law (JMOL) finding no induced infringement of RE40,000 by Teva’s Coreg® … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Horizon’s OB ‘913 claim 12 survives obviousness challenge (Pennsaid® for osteoarthritis)

Posted on October 11, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

HZNP Medicines LLC et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Docket No. 2017-2149, -2152-53, -2202-3, -2206 PROST, NEWMAN, REYNA October 10, 2019 Brief Summary: DC findings of indefiniteness, no induced infringement, and no invalidity for obviousness regarding Horizon’s OB patents … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Grant of SJ of non-infringement reversed due to “genuine dispute of material fact on…whether the…software was capable of infringing uses”

Posted on October 10, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

NeuroGrafix, et al. v. Brainlab, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-2363 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO October 7, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Grant of SJ reversed due to “genuine dispute of material fact on…whether the…software was capable of infringing uses”. Summary: NeuroGrafix … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC grant of SJ of no induced infringement affirmed, exclusion of expert report proper since Phigenix did not “timely disclose its narrowed infringement theory”

Posted on September 12, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Phigenix, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc. Docket No. 2017-2617, 2018-1042 REYNA, BRYSON, STOLL September 5, 2019 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of no induced infringement after exclusion of Phigenix’s expert report affirmed (e.g., “[w]ithout its expert report, Phigenix’s direct … Continue reading →

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment