On May 15, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC.[1] The patent at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 (‘291) was directed to systems and methods for performing statistical analyses of investment information. In other words, the ‘291 patent claimed subject matter that was merely an innovative …
Category: fed circuit watch
opinions by ct appeals for federal circuit (patent, trademark, some copyright)
Fed Circuit Watch: Merck’s Unclean Hands Render Hep C Patents Unenforceable
The doctrine of unclean hands is a judicially-created equitable defense in which equitable relief is denied where that party has acted in a fraudulent manner or in bad faith.[1] Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc.,[2] decided by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 25, 2018, discusses the confluence of …
Fed Circuit Watch: Post-TC Heartland Gaps Filled
Although the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in T.C. Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brand LLC more than one year ago, which this blog discussed, the contours of its holding are still being worked out. In T.C. Heartland, the Supreme Court held that the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), limits patent litigants …
Fed Circuit Watch: Technicality in Rules Does Not Eviscerate Showing Patent Infringement
Because patent infringement is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, any procedural rules governing the cases are examined under the Federal rules.[1] These confusing and arcane rules sometimes make analysis of patent cases more an exercise of rules research rather than patent law itself. An example is Disc Disease …
Fed Circuit Watch: Issue Preclusion Cannot Save Voting Method Patent From §101 Ax
On April 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC,[1] that in spite of a favorable prior judicial ruling (although not necessarily on §101 patent subject matter-eligibility), issue preclusion did not apply, and affirmed the patent-ineligibility holding by the district court. The …
Fed Circuit Watch: District Court Bungles Inventorship Issue, Holds Federal Circuit
In a blend of jurisdictional and patent formality law, James v. J2 Cloud Services, LLC,[1] deals with the question of whether the inventor retained ownership over a patent so he had standing to sue for correction-of-inventorship under 35 U.S.C. §256. The vehicle used was an agreement, so much of the analysis is an understanding of …
Fed Circuit Watch: Dropped Priority Claim Invalidates Patent
On April 19, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down Droplets, Inc. v. E*Trade Bank,[1] in a case dealing with the formal issue of preparing a proper claim of priority in the specification. The absence of one will cause major problems downstream, as it did for Droplets, Inc. The facts are …
Fed Circuit Watch: Swearing Behind Must be Supported by Sufficient Evidence
On April 17, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S,[1] that in order for a patent assignee to swear behind a reference by antedating its own conception, it must do so by more than just merely providing the inventor’s statement of conception. The facts are …
Fed Circuit Watch: Plain Claim Language Not Narrowed Unless Patentee Explicitly Disclaims Scope
An interesting study in organic chemistry appeared at the Federal Circuit. On April 16, 2018, a Fed Circuit panel in Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Emcure Pharm. Ltd.,[1] held that plain claim language will be construed narrowly absent the patentee’s clear disclaimer limiting its scope. First a primer on stereochemistry, which is the study …
WesternGeco Damages Case Before SCOTUS in Doubt After Fed Circuit Ruling
A recently-issued decision from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may have implications on a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court. That case, WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,[1] was issued May 7, 2018, and may affect how the Supreme Court rules in a related case involving the same parties and patents …