-
Jan 7, 2025 | 
jdsupra.com | Jason Wrubleski |Nika Aldrich
Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal Nos. 2023-1354, -1384, -1407 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2, 2025)In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review finding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which had upheld the patentability of challenged claims of appellee 3G Licensing’s U.S. Patent No. 7,319,718.
-
Nov 26, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Jason Wrubleski |Nika Aldrich
Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. K.Mizra LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-2290, 2023-1183 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2024)In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential action this week, a panel of the Court declined to dismiss an appeal after the parties had settled their dispute. The Court proceeded to issue its mandate to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion from earlier this year.
-
Oct 29, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Tyler J. Hall |Jason Wrubleski |Nika Aldrich
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson AB, Ericsson, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. et. al., Appeal No. 2024-1515 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024)In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit clarified that, for an issue in a domestic suit to be “dispositive” under the Microsoft framework in foreign antisuit injunction proceedings, it only needs to potentially resolve whether the injunction is appropriate, and does not need to necessarily resolve the entire dispute.
-
Oct 22, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Nika Aldrich |Jason Wrubleski
UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., Appeal No. 23-1435 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2024)In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Court analyzed the extent to which claim construction is appropriate on a motion to dismiss a complaint. In the end, the Court concluded it is appropriate for a district court to engage in claim construction while assessing a motion to dismiss, but that, in this case, more was needed. The Court remanded for further findings.
-
Oct 15, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Jason Wrubleski |Nika Aldrich
AlexSam, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., Appeal No. 2022-2036 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 8, 2024)In the Court’s only precedential patent opinion last week, a panel of the Federal Circuit granted appellant AlexSam a second chance to hold health-care giant Aetna accountable for alleged infringement of its patent claims concerning the use of payment cards in connection with health-care charges.
-
Oct 1, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Mario Delegato |Nika Aldrich
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2024)The Federal Circuit’s only precedential opinion this week was a rare order that granted en banc review of a prior panel decision. Here, the Court agreed to review the panel’s decision relevant to evidentiary issues related to the calculation of damages in patent lawsuits. Specifically, the Court considered whether the district court had adhered to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v.
-
Sep 24, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Nika Aldrich |Jason Wrubleski
Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1398 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2024)In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit evaluated certain heavily litigated claims directed to guide catheters. The patents all claimed a “substantially rigid portion/segment,” but the claims were drafted so different portions of the catheters satisfied the “substantially rigid portion/segment” claim term.
-
Sep 4, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Nika Aldrich |Jason Wrubleski
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1884, -1886 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2024)In its only precedential patent decision last week, the Federal Circuit brought to a close a long-running dispute between the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) and Apple concerning allegations of infringement of Apple’s A7, A8, A9, and A10 processors. The dispute involved two separate patent lawsuits concerning a single patent.
-
Aug 27, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Nika Aldrich |Jason Wrubleski
Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C. v. Sling TV, L.L.C., Appeal No. 2023-1035 (Fed. Cir. August 23, 2024)In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit helped clarify which facts may be considered by a district court in its “exceptional case” determination to award attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 285.
-
Aug 13, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Nika Aldrich |Jason Wrubleski
Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Appeal No. 2022-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024)In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit confirmed the invalidity of all claims of two asserted patents as abstract under Section 101. Although the Section 101 analysis follows a long line of cases, the procedural aspects of this case sounded a cautionary note to patent plaintiffs and their counsel about the practice of using representative claims in litigation.
