September 2013
 |
| Patent App[eals] includes PDFs of all patent-related Federal Circuit decisions dating back to 2001. A user can search on keywords, judges, dates of decisions, lower court from which the case was appealed, case name, case number, and whether or not a case was heard en banc. In addition, cases summarized in Last Month at the Federal Circuit newsletter also include the Finnegan case summary. |
In Claim Construction, Grammar-Based Argument Did Not Overcome Clear Written Description
[Appealed from D. Minn., Judge Frank]
Prior Art’s Brief Teaching of
Counter-Rotation Is Not Sufficient to Prove Anticipation or Obviousness
[Appealed from W.D. Wis., Senior Judge Crabb]
Objective Evidence of Secondary Considerations Cannot Be Ignored When Determining Obviousness Under the Graham Factors
[Appealed from ITC]
Expert May Not Testify Beyond the Scope of the Expert Report Unless Substantially Justified or Harmless
[Appealed from M.D. Fla., Judge Corrigan]
In a Fetal Genetic Test Case, Court Provides Additional Guidance to Address Traditional Equitable Factors for a Preliminary Injunction
[Appealed from N.D. Cal., Judge Illston]
Exceptional Case Finding Upheld Where Patent Assertion Entity Prolonged Litigation in Bad Faith Despite Adverse Claim Construction and Lack of Any Credible Alternative Argument
[Appealed from W.D. Wis., Chief Judge Crabb]
The Prior Art’s Failure to Appreciate a Problem Solved by the Claimed Invention Indicates an Absence of a Reason to Attempt to Improve upon the Prior Art
[Appealed from Board]
Litigation Misconduct and a Vexatious Litigation Strategy Can Justify Awarding Attorneys’ Fees for an Entire Case, Without Assertion of Bad Faith or Objectively Baseless Claims
[Appealed from N.D. Cal., Judge Wilken]
On-Sale Bar Covers Offers to Sell Made by Suppliers
[Appealed from E.D. Va., Judge Spencer]
No Exclusive Supreme Court Jurisdiction in Inventorship Dispute Where State Officials, Not State, Were Named Defendants
Nos. 12-1540, -1541, -1661
(Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2013)
[Appealed from D. Mass., Judge Saris]
Public Has Minimal Interest in Parties’ Confidential Information Not Central to a Decision on the Merits and Not Necessary to the Public’s Understanding of the Case
[Appealed from N.D. Cal., Judge Koh]
An Implicit Disclaimer Limits Claim Scope Even When Contrary to Ordinary Meaning
[Appealed from S.D. Cal., Judge Sammartino]
Mere Clarification of Original Injunction Without Modification That Substantially Alters the Legal Relations of the Parties Does Not Confer Appellate Jurisdiction Until Final Judgment
[Appealed from D. Nev., Judge Navarro]
Previous Claim Construction Decision Does Not Control Written Description Inquiry
[Appealed from N.D. Ill., Judge Kendall]
| Abbreviations | |
| ALJ | Administrative Law Judge |
| ANDA | Abbreviated New Drug Application |
| APA | Administrative Procedures Act |
| APJ | Administrative Patent Judge |
| Board | 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 |
| Follow us on |  |
 |
 |