The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, did not abuse its discretion in finding that Bayer CropScience’s infringement suit against agrochemical rival Dow AgroSciences over soybean gene technology qualified as an “exceptional case” warranting an award of attorney fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit…
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err when it concluded that the claims of a patent relating to the use of descriptive text combined with a rollover viewing area in the user interface of an Internet search engine were unpatentable as obvious in light of prior art, the U.S. Court of Appeals for…
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in finding that certain claims of Slot Speaker Technologies, Inc.’s sound reproduction system patent were invalid as obvious in light of prior art, according to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. However, the Board erred in holding that a third claim was not…
Pharmaceuticals company Watson’s proposed generic version of competitor Shire’s brand-name mesalamine LIALDA® did not satisfy the requirements for a Markush group claimed by a Shire patent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. A compound contained in the ANDA product—which was not present in the patent claim’s Markush group—structurally and functionally…
Two patents directed to a method for the electronic trading of stocks, bonds, futures, and options asserted by Trading Technologies International (TTI) against the CQG companies were not directed to an abstract idea and also recited an inventive concept, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. In affirming a federal district…
A federal district court erred in ruling that 34 claims of a patent on a system and method of using a graphical indicator were invalid as indefinite, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Because a skilled artisan would understand, with reasonable certainty, the meaning of the term “visually negligible,” and…
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Federal Circuit decision upholding a jury’s award of damages to Apple Inc. based on infringement of its design patents by Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. At issue was whether, in the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” must always be the…
The federal district court in Los Angeles did not err in granting default judgment and a permanent injunction to United Construction Products, Inc. dba Bison Innovative Products on its patent infringement and unfair competition claims against Tile Tech, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled (Tile Tech, Inc. v. United…
Purchasers of AstraZeneca LP’s heartburn medication Nexium were not entitled to a new trial to their challenge of “reverse payment” agreements between AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals that allegedly blocked the entry of a generic version of the drug, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston has decided. The plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court improperly…
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board properly found during inter partes review (IPR) that two claims of a patent directed to a mechanism for controlling the operation of a downhole drill string were invalid as anticipated by a prior art reference, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided. The court rejected…
