September 05, 2017
Authored and Edited by Caitlin E. O'Connell; Lillian R. Phares; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., No. 16-2010, Courtroom 203
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will decide whether a party has standing to participate in an inter partes reexamination proceeding if the original requester is acquired while the reexamination was pending. Knowles argues that the Board erred in permitting the Cirrus entities to participate because neither Cirrus entity filed the reexamination request or established that it was a successor-in-interest to the original requestor. Cirrus Logic argues that the Board properly permitted it to participate because it acquired the original requester and Cirrus UK Ltd. is the same legal entity as the original requester.
Isola USA Corporation v. Taiwan Union Technology Corporation, No. 16-1674, Courtroom 203
In this case, the Federal Circuit will consider Isola USA’s cross-appeal of the district court’s finding of no willful infringement as a matter of law in light of the intervening Supreme Court decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics. Isola USA argues that willfulness under the new Halo standard requires only a showing of “subjective willfulness” and thus the court’s finding must be reversed because objective reasonableness is no longer a valid defense. Taiwan Union argues that objective willfulness is still a relevant consideration and that the district court did not abuse its discretion even under the new Halo standard.
Front Row Technologies LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., No. 16-2604, Courtroom 203
This appeal arises from a District of New Mexico decision finding the claims of all the patents-in-suit invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Front Row argues that the district court erred in invalidating every claim in the five patents-in-suit based upon its review of only three claims that it deemed to “adequately represent” “most” of the claims. MLB Advanced argues that the district properly reviewed only a select number of representative claims because the court meticulously selected the claims and the remaining claims are not “materially distinct” from the representative claims.
Sanofi v. Watson Laboratories Inc., No. 16-2722, Courtroom 201
This appeal arises from a District of Delaware decision in which the court found Watson liable for induced infringement. Watson argues that intent to induce infringement cannot be inferred from its label because the label includes non-infringing uses for its proposed generic product. Sanofi argues that Watson’s label describes the significant clinical benefit to the patient population disclosed and claimed in Sanofi’s patent and thus encourages administration of its generic product according to the claimed methods. Sanofi further argues that it is irrelevant that physicians could occasionally use Watson’s proposed generic product in a non-infringing manner.
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., No. 16-2520, Courtroom 201
Blue Coat appeals a Northern District of California decision finding claims directed to a method for flagging suspicious messages patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Blue Coat argues that the claimed methods require nothing more than conventional computer components and contain no inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea. Finjan argues that the claimed methods are patent eligible under § 101 because they result in tangible, real-world benefit, are rooted in computer technology, and have specific limitations that provide meaningful boundaries over conventional technology.
Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
The Federal Circuit’s Heartfelt Affirmation of Everybody’s Right to Use “Everybody vs. Racism”
March 22, 2024
Conference
2nd Annual Forum on IP, Funding and Tech Strategies for Novel Therapeutic Modalities
March 20, 2024
Boston
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.