View previous updates...

Oplus Technologies, LTD. v. Vizio, Inc. (No. 2014-1297, 4/10/15) (Prost, Moore, O'Malley)

April 10, 2015 4:33 PM

Moore, J. The district court abused its discretion in denying attorneys and expert witness fees where it found litigation misconduct and that case was exceptional. 

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Automated Merchandising v. Lee (No. 2014-1728, 4/10/15) (Prost, Taranto, Fogel)

April 10, 2015 2:10 PM

Taranto, J. The PTO's refusal to terminate inter partes reexamination after entry of consent judgment in district court was not a final agency action subject to review.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Insite Vision Incorporated v. Sandoz, Inc. (No. 2014-1065, 4/9/15) (Prost, Newman, Linn)

April 9, 2015 12:40 PM

Linn, J. Affirming judgment that patents directed to treatment of eye infections were not obvious.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp. (No. 2014-1221, 4/7/15) (O'Malley, Clevenger, Bryson)

April 7, 2015 1:50 PM

Bryson, J. Affirming reasonable royalty award of 50% of defendant's gross margin based on the sale of infringing drug formulation. Although the Court declined to hold that entire market value rule was per se inapplicable in the pharmaceutical context, the rule was inapplicable where the claim covered all the ingredients in the drug. Further, although a court is required to evaluate relative value of the "conventional" and "unconventional" elements in the claim, "it is not the case that the value of all conventional elements must be subtracted from the value of the patented invention as a whole when assessing damages." The district court's finding that the formulation substantially created the value of the patent was supported by the evidence. However, the district court erred in awarding a reasonable royalty based on the sale of products during pediatric exclusivity because those sales were not acts of patent infringement.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Tibco Software, Inc. (No. 2014-1094, -1096 4/3/15) (Chen, Linn, Hughes)

April 3, 2015 9:22 AM

Linn, J. With respect to patent directed to online analytical processing of data, affirming claim construction order and resulting judgment of non-infringement, but reversing summary judgment of non-enablement and written description based on disputed issues of fact.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (No. 2014-1724, 4/1/15) (O'Malley, Bryson, Hughes)

April 1, 2015 3:12 PM

O'Malley, J. Dismissing appeal over whether district court erred in refusing to grant stay of case pending resolution of petitions seeking covered business method review where petitions had been filed but not acted on by the PTO. Hughes, J., dissented.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (No. 2014-1282, 2014-1291, 3/31/15) (Taranto, Mayer, Clevenger)

March 31, 2015 4:40 PM

Taranto, J. In Hatch-Waxman case, declaratory judgment jurisdiction existed over disclaimed patent because a judgment of non-infringement would allow second generic filer earlier entry onto market.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.