admin
June 26, 2018
D THREE ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SUNMODO CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee 2017-1909, 2017-1910 Decided: May 21, 2018 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees based on a determination that D Three could not claim priority from a provisional application filed February 9, 2009 (“2009 Application”). The priority claim was necessary to D Three’s case, […]
admin
March 26, 2018
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC No. 2017-1560 Fed. Cir. Feb. 9 2018 Opinion by Circuit Judge Stoll with Circuit Judges Taranto and Clevenger. Merck filed an infringement suit alleging that, if approved by the FDA, Amneal’s proposed Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) product would infringe U.S.Patent No. 6,127,353. Following a bench trial, the district court […]
admin
January 26, 2018
TRAVEL SENTRY, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. DAVID A. TROPP, Defendant-Appellant 2016-2386, 2016-2387, 2016-2714, 2017-1025 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Nos. 1:06-cv-06415-ENV- RLM, 1:08-cv-04446-ENV-RLM, Judge Eric N. Vitaliano. For the third time, the Court presided over this dispute regarding whether Travel Sentry, Inc. (“Travel Sentry”) and its licensees infringed […]
admin
December 26, 2017
PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC. v. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP. 2016-2607, 2016-2650 Presidio filed suit against American Technical Ceramics Corp. (“ATC”) for patent infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holdings that the claims of the patent are not indefinite and that ATC is entitled to absolute intervening rights because a substantive amendment was made during […]
admin
November 26, 2017
Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm And Haas Co. Nos. 2015-1983, -2001 Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2017 Opinion by Circuit Judge Newman with Chief Judge Prost and Circuit Judge Taranto Organik appeals the decisions of the PTAB in two IPR proceedings. The PTAB sustained the patentability of claims U.S Patent No. 6,020,435 (“the ’435 Patent”) and […]
admin
September 26, 2017
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Appellant v. MEXICHEM AMANCO HOLDING S.A. DE C.V., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD., Appellees 2016-1996 Decided: August 1, 2017 Opinion by Circuit Judge Lourie with Circuit Judge Reyna Opinion dissenting-in-part by Circuit Judge Wallach Honeywell appealed from a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the Examiner’s […]
admin
May 26, 2017
Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc. No. 2016-1678, -1679 Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017 Opinion by Circuit Judge Wallach with Chief Judge Prost and Circuit Judge Stoll Editors note: The instant appeals concern inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,316,023 (“the ’023 patent”) and 6,335,031 (“the ’031 patent”) (together, “the Patents-in-Suit”). The United States Court of Appeals […]
admin
April 26, 2017
MENTOR GRAPHICS v. EVE-USA, INC., SYNOPSYS EMULATION AND VERIFICATION S.A.S, SYNOPSYS, INC. 2015-1470, 2015-1554, 2015-1556 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Decided: March 16, 2017 This lengthy opinion addresses: whether substantial evidence existed to support a jury’s infringement verdict; assignor estoppel; indefiniteness; eligible subject matter; preclusion of evidence of […]
admin
March 26, 2017
SHIRE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, SHIRE PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., COSMO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, GIULIANI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, NKA NOGRA PHARMA LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NKA ACTAVIS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. – FLORIDA, NKA ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC., WATSON PHARMA, INC., NKA ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants-Appellants 2016-1785 February 10, 2017 Plaintiffs Shire sued Defendants Watson […]
admin
January 26, 2017
U.S. Water Services, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S No. 2015-1950, -1967 Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2016 Opinion by Circuit Judge Wallach with Circuit Judges Hughes and Stoll. The district court granted Novozymes’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part, finding certain patent claims invalid as inherently anticipated by various prior art references. However, the district court denied […]
