-
Nov 11, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Tessa Kroll
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a
district court determination that a patent owner had not provided
the "particularized testimony and linking argument"
required to demonstrate equivalence under the doctrine of
equivalents. NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns,
LLC, Case No. 2022-1815 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024)
(Chen, Taranto, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring in
part and dissenting in part).
-
Nov 7, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Tessa Kroll
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court determination that a patent owner had not provided the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Case No. 2022-1815 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024) (Chen, Taranto, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
-
Nov 7, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Tessa Kroll
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court determination that a patent owner had not provided the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Case No. 2022-1815 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024) (Chen, Taranto, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
-
Nov 7, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Tessa Kroll |Stanley Jones |Helen Sloat |Nick Oberheiden
Skip to main content November 07, 2024 Volume XIV, Number 312 Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found.
-
Aug 1, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Tessa Kroll
On cross-appeals from a granted Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 12(c) motion on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent directed to a method for “assist[ing] an investigator in conducting a background investigation” did not claim patent-eligible subject matter, but that the mere assertion of the patent did not render the case “exceptional” for the purposes of attorneys’ fees. Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, Case No. 22-1753 (Fed. Cir.
-
Aug 1, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Tessa Kroll
On cross-appeals from a granted Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 12(c) motion on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent directed to a method for “assist[ing] an investigator in conducting a background investigation” did not claim patent-eligible subject matter, but that the mere assertion of the patent did not render the case “exceptional” for the purposes of attorneys’ fees. Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, Case No. 22-1753 (Fed. Cir.
-
Aug 1, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Tessa Kroll
On cross-appeals from a granted Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 12(c) motion on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent directed to a method for “assist[ing] an investigator in conducting a background investigation” did not claim patent-eligible subject matter, but that the mere assertion of the patent did not render the case “exceptional” for the purposes of attorneys’ fees. Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, Case No. 22-1753 (Fed. Cir.
-
Jun 27, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Tessa Kroll
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the granting of a sweeping preliminary injunction (PI) in a trade secret suit against a competitor, finding that the district court’s analysis failed to consider potentially dispositive issues and the requirements of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co., Case No. 24-1137 (Fed. Cir.
-
Jun 27, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Tessa Kroll
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the granting of a sweeping preliminary injunction (PI) in a trade secret suit against a competitor, finding that the district court’s analysis failed to consider potentially dispositive issues and the requirements of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co., Case No. 24-1137 (Fed. Cir.
-
May 2, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Tessa Kroll
In the latest development in the ongoing litigation saga between competitors Sonos and Google, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the US International Trade Commission’s determination that the original accused audio players and controllers infringed the asserted patents while redesigned products did not. Sonos, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No. 22-1421 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2024) (Stark, Dyk, Reyna, JJ.) (nonprecedential).
