CAFC Opinion No. 2022-1532-1533, Decided August 7, 2023 (Lourie, Dyk, Taranto) (Precedential) Overview: Petitioner in IPR must be given an opportunity to respond to new construction raised in the Patent Owner Response (POR). Facts/Procedural Posture: Medtronic, Inc. owns the ’758 and ’148 patents which are directed to the transcutaneous charging of implanted medical devices. Axonics […]
CAFC Opinion No. 2022-1765, Decided August 24, 2023 (Moore, Lourie, Cunningham) (Precedential) Overview: Objective indicia of non-obviousness is important part of obviousness determination, and nexus requirement should not be overly restrictively. Facts/Procedural Posture: Volvo Penta marketed a successful line of boat engine drives where the propellers are forward facing and thus tucked under the boat. […]
CAFC Opinion No. 2022-1293-1296, Decided August 28, 2023 (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna) (Precedential) Overview: Obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) is based on Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”) adjusted expiration date of patent. Facts/Procedural Posture: Cellect sued Samsung Electronics, Co. (“Samsung”) for infringement of challenged patents in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Samsung requested ex parte […]
Case No. 22-1094, Decided April 13, 2023 Prost, Reyna, Stark Overview: TTAB findings on likelihood of confusion under DuPont factors analysis are supported by substantial evidence where the Board’s pathway may be reasonably discerned, even if weight accorded to each factor is not explicit. Facts/Background: Charger Ventures filed intent-to-use TM application to register “SPARK LIVING” […]
Case No. 21-2356, Decided May 24, 2023 Moore, Lourie (majority), and Dyk (dissenting) Overview: Determination of whether an invention would work for its intended purpose for the purposes of actual reduction to practice to antedate art cited under §102(e) does not require 1:1 comparison or quantitative assessment, merely that an inventor would understand a test […]
Overview: For determining analogous art, the problem addressed by the cited reference must be compared to that of the patent at issue (not only to problems addressed in other prior art references). Facts/Background: Mylan filed IPR against Sanofi’s U.S. Pat. No. RE47,614 (“the ’614 Patent”), which is directed to a drug delivery device including a […]
Grace Instrument Indus., LLC v. Chandler Instruments Co., LLC, 57 F.4th 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Chen, Cunningham, Stark; appeal from S.D. Tex. Case No. 4:20-cv-01749 (Hanen, J.)) Issue – Indefiniteness Patent at issue: U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877 (“the ’877 patent”) Independent claims 1 and 4 of the ’877 patent concern: A pressurized device comprising: […] […]
Personalized Media Comms., LLC v. Apple Inc., 2023 WL 328500 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2023) (Reyna, Chen, Stark (dissenting)); appeal from E.D. Tex. (Gilstrap, J.) Issue: Prosecution Laches Background Personalized Media Communications (“PMC”) filed 328 GATT-bubble patents leading up to the change of US patent term from 17 years from issuance to 20 years from […]
Jurisdiction under FRCP 4(k)(2) (Mandamus) In re Stingray IP Sols., LLC, 56 F.4th 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. Jan 9, 2023) (Lourie, Taranto, Stark) Mandamus to E.D. Tex. (Gilstrap, J.) Background Foreign defendants, TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. (China) and TP-Link Corporation Limited (Hong Kong), sought §1406 transfer, in the alternative, from the Eastern District of Texas […]
Modern Font Applications LLC v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., No. 2021-1838 (Fed Cir (Utah) Dec. 29, 2022). Opinion by Cunningham, joined by Reyna. Dissent by Newman. Summary: Plaintiff, Modern Font Applications LLC (MFA) filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the District of Utah’s order, which affirmed a magistrate judge’s decision to exclude MFA’s in-house counsel from viewing […]
©2023 Klarquist Sparkman, LLP. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Notice | Privacy Policy | Site Map