Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp.
District court did not err in failing to apply collateral estoppel regarding the reasonable royalty of two different accused products, and the judgment was affirmed. The jury's finding of willfulness was supported by substantial evidence.
|
Flex-Rest, LLC v. Steelcase, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit, the district court correctly refused to instruct the jury on suppression of prior art, when defendant’s reduction to practice was followed, six months later, by commercialization and the filing of a patent application.
The claim term “sidewalls” had been correctly construed to cover structures that projected or extended upward from a tray, because the claim language and specification made clear that the sidewalls were part of the support for a computer keyboa
|
Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.
Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of willful, indirect infringement of the patentee's gas fireplace configuration; defendant was reckless in obtaining an incompetent oral opinion of noninfringement.
|
Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Management, LLC, et al.
The Federal Circuit found flaws in the district court’s interpretation of the limitation “distributing” found in claim 9 of the ’982 patent, which called into question two stipulated judgments of noninfringement. The Court construed the limitation, despite the fact that there were claims of invalidity and unenforceability pending before district court and that there was a lack of discussion of the accused products on the record. The case was vacated and remanded to the district court for furth
|
Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Chamberlain Group, Inc.
On appeal, a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement was vacated due to lack of case or controversy.
|
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Inequitable conduct findings require a balancing of the materiality of the misrepresentation against Patentee's intent to deceive.
|
Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc.
Federal circuit upholds lower court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringment in part because Plaintiff's claim construction rendered dependent claim "nonsensical."
|
Stern v. Trustees of Columbia University, et al
Purported inventor failed to present sufficient evidence to be added as co-inventor of patent-at-issue
|
Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Technology Corp., et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.
Federal Circuit refuses to reconsider decision that Section 271(f) applies to process inventions
|
Venture Industries Corp. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc.
District court erred in failing to address whether financial statements containing false information used at trial constituted fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct.
|