Category Archives: International Trade Commission

ITC decision of non-infringement of functional/capability-type computer claims affirmed; decision as to expired patent found moot

Posted on September 13, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

INVT SPE LLC v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC), HTC America, Inc. et al. (Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1903 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1903.OPINION.8-31-2022_1997811.pdf) NEWMAN, TARANTO, CHEN August 31, 2022 Brief Summary:   ITC decision finding no infringement of functional computer claims affirmed; decision regarding expired … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Functional limitations, Importation, International Trade Commission, Method claims, Software | Leave a comment

DC denial of Thales’ motion to enjoin Philips’ ITC exclusion order as Thales did not show it was likely to suffer irreparable harm affirmed

Posted on July 27, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, et al. Docket No. 2021-2106 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2106.OPINION.7-13-2022_1977322.pdf) MOORE, DYK, CHEN July 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC denial of Thales motion to enjoin Philips from seeking ITC exclusion order affirmed … Continue reading →

Posted in Infringement, International Trade Commission, Software | Leave a comment

ITC decision remanded for briefing on structure correlating to means-plus-function limitation

Posted on February 8, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Kyocera Senco Ind. Tools, et al. v. International Trade Commission (ITC) Docket No. 2020-1046, -2050 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1046.OPINION.1-21-2022_1896055.pdf) MOORE, DYK, CUNNINGHAM January 21, 2021 Brief Summary:  ITC decision vacated and remanded for the parties to brief “what structures correspond to” the means-plus-function … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, International Trade Commission, Means-plus-function, Written description | Leave a comment

ITC claim construction and finding of infringement under the DOE affirmed

Posted on September 24, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH v. Int. Trade Comm. (Glycosyn LLC as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-2220 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-2220.OPINION.9-17-2021_1836421.pdf) DYK, PROST, HUGHES September 17, 2021 Non-precedential Brief Summary:  ITC claim construction and finding of infringement under the DOE affirmed. Summary:  Jennewein appealed ITC’s claim … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Importation, Infringement, International Trade Commission | Leave a comment

ITC findings that Bio-Rad infringed and does not co-own 10X patents affirmed

Posted on April 30, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 10X Genomics Inc. Docket No. 2020-1785 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1785.OPINION.4-29-2021_1770917.pdf) TARANTO, CHEN, STOLL April 29, 2021 Brief Summary:  ITC infringement and no co-ownership findings affirmed. Summary:  Bio-Rad appealed International Trade Commission (ITC) decision finding infringement and … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Conception and Reduction to Practice, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Inventorship | Leave a comment

ITC decision reversed as Chamberlain disavowed openers lacking infrared detectors

Posted on December 13, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. et al. v. Int. Trade Comm., The Chamberlain Group, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-2191 LOURIE, DYK, WALLACH December 12, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC claim construction and final determination of infringement reversed and vacated. Summary: Techtronic et al. … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Injunction, International Trade Commission, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed

Posted on August 29, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int. Trade Comm. (ITC), Aspen Aerogels, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2042 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC finding of no indefiniteness or invalidity for anticipation or obviousness affirmed. Summary: Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Indefiniteness, Inherency, International Trade Commission, Obviousness, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ITC claim construction, written description, and finding of infringement by imported E. coli strains affirmed by Federal Circuit

Posted on August 8, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Ajinomoto Co. et al. v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC) et al. Docket No. 2018-1590, -1629 (ITC No. 337-TA-1005) DYK (C/D), MOORE, TARANTO August 6, 2019 Brief Summary: ITC claim construction, written description, and finding that certain E. coli strains imported … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Doctrine of equivalents, Importation, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Prosecution History Estoppel, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. International Trade Commission (ITC) (Appellee) and Royal DSM NV, et al. (Intervenors)

Posted on May 16, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2018-1247 and 2018-114 PROST, WALLACH (D), HUGHES May 1, 2019 Brief summary: ITC decision “that Amarin’s allegations are precluded by the FDCA” affirmed since, e.g., “[p]rivate parties may not bring [FDCA] enforcement suits.” Summary: Amarin, which markets Vascepa … Continue reading →

Posted in International Trade Commission | Leave a comment

Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. International Trade Commission (ITC) (Appellee) and Royal DSM NV, et al. (Intervenors) (Docket No. 2018-1247)

Posted on May 2, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2018-1247 and 2018-114 PROST, WALLACH (D), HUGHES May 1, 2019 Brief summary: ITC decision “that Amarin’s allegations are precluded by the FDCA” affirmed since, e.g., “[p]rivate parties may not bring [FDCA] enforcement suits.” Summary: Amarin, which markets Vascepa(TM) … Continue reading →

Posted in International Trade Commission | Leave a comment