January 2015
Federal Circuit Clarifies Inherency Doctrine in Reversing Obviousness Determination
No. 14-1391 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2014)
[Appealed from D. Md., Judge Blake]
Royalty for a Standard Essential Patent Should Be Based on Added Value of the Patented Invention to the Standard
[Appealed from E.D. Tex., Judge Davis]
Prior Reduction to Practice Is Not Necessary Under § 103 for Prior Art with Prior Conception
Nos. 13-1324, -1381 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2014)
[Appealed from D. Conn., Judge Arterton]
Claims Patent Eligible Under § 101 Where Claimed Solution to Technological Problem Is Rooted in Computer Technology
[Appealed from E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap]
No. 14-1186 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2014)
[Appealed from N.D. Ill., Judge Tharp Jr.]
No DJ Jurisdiction Before Filing of FDA Application for Biosimilar Product
[Appealed from N.D. Cal., Judge Chesney]
Mistake in Filing a Terminal Disclaimer Is Not a “Mistake of a Clerical or Typographical Nature” That May Be Corrected Under 35 U.S.C. § 255
[Appealed from E.D. Va., Judge Trenga]
Shipment of Single Important Component to Party’s Own Foreign Manufacturing Facility Constitutes Inducement Under § 271(f)(1)
Nos. 13-1011, -1029, -1376
(Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2014)
[Appealed from W.D. Wis., Chief Judge Crabb]
TTAB Erred in Refusing to Register TAKETEN Mark Based on Likelihood of Confusion with TAKE 10! Mark
No. 14-1009
(Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2014)
[Appealed from TTAB]
Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim Cannot Be Dismissed as Time-Barred or Factually Implausible Merely Because Misappropriations Occurred Repeatedly over Twenty Years
No. 14-1356 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2014)
[Appealed from S.D. Fla., Judge Moore]
Synthesized DNA Primers Identical to Natural DNA and Conventional Methods of Comparing DNA Sequences Are Patent Ineligible
[Appealed from D. Utah, Judge Shelby]
District Court Erred in Treating Actual Profits as Cap for Royalty Damages
[Appealed from D. Utah, Chief Judge Stewart]
Claims Directed to Document Data Extraction Technology Not Patent Eligible Under § 101
Nos. 13-1588, -1589, 14-1112, -1687
(Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014)
[Appealed from D.N.J., Judge Shipp]
Erroneous Understanding of Written Description and Claims Constituted Sufficient “Error” for Reissue, Regardless of What Triggered Recognition of the Error
[Appealed from D. Idaho, Chief Judge Winmill]
Abbreviations | |
AIA | America Invents Act |
ALJ | Administrative Law Judge |
ANDA | Abbreviated New Drug Application |
APA | Administrative Procedures Act |
APJ | Administrative Patent Judge |
Board | Patent Trial and Appeal Board (formerly the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences) |
Commissioner | Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks |
CIP | Continuation-in-Part |
DJ | Declaratory Judgment |
DOE | Doctrine of Equivalents |
FDA | Food and Drug Administration |
IDS | Information Disclosure Statement |
ITC | International Trade Commission |
JMOL | Judgment as a Matter of Law |
MPEP | Manual of Patent Examining Procedure |
NDA | New Drug Application |
PCT | Patent Cooperation Treaty |
PTO | United States Patent and Trademark Office |
SJ | Summary Judgment |
TTAB | Trademark Trial and Appeal Board |