Category Archives: Willfullness

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

DC infringement decision affirmed for one patent, preambles found limiting as to two others, money damages affirmed, injunction for two of four accused products vacated

Posted on August 18, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., The Univ. of Chicago v. 10X Genomics Inc. Docket No. 2019-2255, -2285 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO August 3, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decision of infringement of ‘083 patent under DOE affirmed; preamble found to limit ‘407 and ‘193 … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Vitiation, Damages, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Corrected assignment effective to show ownership, willful infringement finding and prejudgment interest award affirmed

Posted on May 18, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Jodi A. Schwendimann, Cooler Concepts, Inc. v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2416, 2019-1012 O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH May 13, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding of willful infringement and award of prejudgment interest affirmed; “corrected nunc pro tunc” assignment effective … Continue reading →

Posted in Assignment / Ownership, Damages, Willfullness | Leave a comment

DC obviousness and infringement decisions regarding coffee filter claims affirmed

Posted on January 22, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Ent., Inc. et al. (“ARM”) Docket No. 2018-2215, -2254 DYK, REYNA, HUGHES January 13, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decisions that ARM’s claims are invalid for obviousness and not infringed, and that ARM willfully … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp.

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

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

SRI Int., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Posted on March 25, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2223 LOURIE (D), O’MALLEY, STOLL March 20, 2019 Brief summary: DC finding of patent eligibility under § 101 affirmed; award of attorney fees vacated and remanded “solely for recalculation”. Summary: Cisco appealed DC denial of its motion for … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Patentability, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solns., Inc. v. Intersil Corp. et al.

Posted on May 8, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2121, -2208, -2235 DYK, BRYSON, TARANTO May 1, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision relating to trade secret misappropriation affirmed- and vacated-in-part (e.g., “Intersil did not misappropriate information that it already had” but did not show alleged trade secret … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Trade Secret, Willfullness | 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

Arctic Cat Inv. V. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. et al.

Posted on December 8, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2017-1475 MOORE, PLAGER, STOLL December 7, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of BRP’s JMOL that the asserted claims would have been obvious and that the royalty, willfulness and trebling of damages were improper affirmed. Patent marking issue vacated … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. Holland L.P.

Posted on August 23, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2297 REYNA, SCHALL, WALLACH August 16, 2017 Brief summary: DC’s infringement ($1.5m awarded), claim construction (preamble is not a limitation), willfulness, and enhanced damages ($1m) conclusions affirmed. Summary: Holland appealed the DC’s infringement ($1.5m awarded), claim construction, willfulness, … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Preamble, Willfullness | Leave a comment