Category Archives: Willfullness

Alfred E. Mann Foundation et al. (“AEM”) v. Cochlear Corporation et al.

Posted on November 21, 2016 by

Docket No. 2015-1580, -1606, -1607 NEWMAN, CHEN, HUGHES November 17, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision of indefiniteness of certain claims for failure to disclosure an algorithm affirmed; another found supported by “adequate defining structure”. Finding of no willfulness vacated and … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness, Means-plus-function, Software, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Stryker Corporation et al. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al.

Posted on September 15, 2016 by

Docket No. 2013-1668 PROST, NEWMAN, HUGHES September 12, 2016 Brief Summary: FC panel affirmed DC finding of infringement, willfulness and no invalidity affirmed. Award of treble damages and attorneys fees vacated and remanded “because the standard for finding an exceptional … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, Damages, Infringement, Lost Profits, Obviousness, Patent Marking, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. et al.

Posted on August 10, 2016 by

Docket No. 2013-1472, -1656 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, HUGHES August 5, 2016 Brief Summary: On remand from SCOTUS, DC decision of no willfulness based on Seagate test vacated and remanded (DC to “consider, as one factor in its analysis, what Pulse knew … Continue reading →

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

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

Posted on July 22, 2016 by

Docket No. 2015-1038, -1044 MOORE, O’MALLEY, CHEN July 19, 2016 Brief Summary: DC denial of JMOL to Kohler on obviousness and WD grounds affirmed. Decision of willfulness affirmed under Halo (US 2016) (“infringer’s subjective bad faith alone may support an … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness, Willfullness, Written description | Leave a comment

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. / Stryker Corporation et al. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al.

Posted on June 14, 2016 by

SCOTUS Docket Nos. 14-1513, -1520 June 13, 2016 Brief Summary: FC judgments finding neither Halo nor Stryker subject to enhanced damages under § 284 since the Seagate test “is unduly rigid, and it impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Damages, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Posted on February 29, 2016 by

Docket No. 2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994 PROST, DYK, REYNA February 26, 2016 Update: See Oct. 7, 2016 en banc opinion reversing this opinion. Brief Summary: DC decisions were affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part. Notably, Samsung’s appeal of DC denial of JMOL of non-infringement … Continue reading →

Posted in Analgous Art, Claim Construction, Means-plus-function, Obviousness, Willfullness | Leave a comment

TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Company, 3M Company

Posted on February 16, 2016 by

Docket No. 2014-1646 DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES February 10, 2016 Brief Summary: Findings of invalidity based on prior public use / obviousness, non-infringement, inequitable conduct, and trebeled damages for antitrust violations affirmed. Summary: Transweb sued for DJ of invalidity and non-infringement … Continue reading →

Posted in Antitrust, Inequitable Conduct, Public Use, Willfullness | Leave a comment