Category Archives: Federal Circuit

Supreme Court’s Stryker/Halo Decision Makes it Easier for Courts to Award Enhanced Damages In Patent Infringement Cases

The recent Supreme Court decisions in the Stryker and Halo cases just made it easier for courts to award enhanced damages in patent infringement cases, discarding Seagate’s “objective recklessness” test. The Seagate Test In 2007, the Federal Circuit announced a test for enhanced … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, enhanced damages, Federal Circuit, Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PTAB Relies on the Federal Circuit’s Recent § 101 Decision to Deny CBM Institution

On May 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a decision on 101 patent eligibility  that overturned a summary judgment finding of § 101 invalidity for software used for databases.  Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL 2756266 (Fed. Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in claim challenges, covered business methods, Federal Circuit, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Employs Phillips Claim Construction to Measure Claims Amended in Reexamination for Possible Intervening Rights

When patent owners sue an accused infringer for patent infringement, one way for the accused infringer to avoid liability is to show noninfringement of the patent claims.  But if the claims are extremely broad, the accused infringer may find it difficult … Continue reading

Posted in Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, Phillips claim construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, prior art, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patent Trends to Watch in 2016

2016 is starting off with a bang!  A number of interesting new developments have occurred as we enter into this new year: The Supreme Court will review broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), courtesy of the petition for cert in Cuozzo The Federal Circuit … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, Federal Circuit, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Supreme Court Review of post-grant issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Interprets Board’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard – Part II

In Microsoft Corp. v. ProxyConn, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, Intervenor (Fed. Cir. cases 2014-1542 and -1543), the Federal Circuit reversed claim constructions made by the Board in the underlying IPRs.  One of the claim constructions that was reversed related … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, prior art, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Interprets Board’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard – Part I

We know from the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard applies in IPRs, but in a recent appeal decision, the Federal Circuit has announced limits to the application of BRI. Microsoft had … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, PTAB | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Affirms Board Finding of Unpatentability in First IPR

The Federal Circuit affirmed the final determination of the Board in the first inter partes review under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).   Garmin petitioned for IPR of claims 10, 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 owned by Cuozzo … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, Mandamus Actions in the Federal Circuit, prior art, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeals by Petitioners Who Were Denied Inter Partes Reviews

The Federal Circuit issued two orders on April 24, 2014 dismissing appeals by petitioners in proceedings where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR).  Each appeal is summarized as follows: St. Jude Medical, … Continue reading

Posted in 315(b) One Year Bar, America Invents Act, claim challenges, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, Litigation, Mandamus Actions in the Federal Circuit, Patent Reform, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eastern District of Texas Denies SAP’s Motion to Vacate the Judgment in the Versata Patent Infringement Case

SAP recently learned that the Eastern District of Texas denied its motion to set aside or stay a district court judgment in favor of Versata for infringement of its U.S. Pat. 6,553,350 (Versata Software, Inc v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00153 … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, Federal Circuit, patent-eligible subject matter, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Stay in Federal Circuit, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Divided Federal Circuit Panel Finds Computer System Claims Not Patent-Eligible

Posted:  September 8, 2013 On September 5, 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District court holding that a computer system claim was not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  In Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., a divided panel … Continue reading

Posted in claim challenges, Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, patent-eligible subject matter, software patents, statutory subject matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment