Arthur Coviello

Nov 8, 2024 | mondaq.com | Arthur Coviello |Omar Khan |Haixia Lin |Jennifer Graber

1. NEXSTEP, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC [OPINION] (2022-1815, 2022-2005, 2022-2113, 10/24/2024) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Chen, J. The Court affirmed the district court's judgment of non-infringement in favor of Comcast. Before the district court, Comcast prevailed on all nine patents asserted by NexStep, including patents related to voice remote controls and customer support systems.

Oct 11, 2024 | mondaq.com | Arthur Coviello |Omar Khan |Haixia Lin |Jennifer Graber

1. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. WEBER, INC. [OPINION] (23-1438, 10/2/24) (Moore, Taranto, Cecchi) Moore, J. The Court reversed the denial of judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and willfulness and also reversed the denial of a new trial on damages. Plaintiff's infringement theory relied on establishing that the accused products could be reprogrammed to operate as claimed. But this was not an infringement scenario where customers could simply activate the infringing configuration.

Oct 10, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Arthur Coviello |Jennifer Graber |Omar Khan

1.PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. WEBER, INC. [OPINION] (23-1438, 10/2/24) (Moore, Taranto, Cecchi)Moore, J. The Court reversed the denial of judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and willfulness and also reversed the denial of a new trial on damages. Plaintiff’s infringement theory relied on establishing that the accused products could be reprogrammed to operate as claimed. But this was not an infringement scenario where customers could simply activate the infringing configuration.

Sep 29, 2024 | mondaq.com | Arthur Coviello |Omar Khan |Haixia Lin |Jennifer Graber

1. ASTELLAS PHARMA v. SANDOZ INC. [OPINION] (2023-2032, 2023-2063, 2023-2089, 9/18/24) (Lourie, Prost, Reyna) Lourie, J. The Court vacated and remanded the district court's finding that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an ineligible natural law. Because no party had raised an invalidity challenge under § 101, the Court found the district court abused its discretion by disregarding the principle of party presentation.

Sep 27, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Arthur Coviello |Jennifer Graber |Omar Khan

1. ASTELLAS PHARMA v. SANDOZ INC. [OPINION] (2023-2032, 2023-2063, 2023-2089, 9/18/24) (Lourie, Prost, Reyna) Lourie, J. The Court vacated and remanded the district court’s finding that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an ineligible natural law. Because no party had raised an invalidity challenge under § 101, the Court found the district court abused its discretion by disregarding the principle of party presentation.