Lincoln National v. Transamerica: Avoiding Infringement of a Computerized Method Claim
Submitted by Jeff C. Parry on 27 Jun 2010In Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., Case Nos. 2009-1403, -1491 (Fed. Cir. 2010), Lincoln asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,089,201 against Transamerica. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that a computerized method claim of the patent was not infringed because one of the steps was performed manually. continue reading...
Encyclopaedia Britannica v. Alpine Electronics: Failure to Reference Earlier Applications
Submitted by Lane M. Chitwood on 20 Jun 2010In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 2009-1544, -1545 (Fed. Cir. 2010) the Federal Circuit concluded that 35 U.S.C. § 120 requires each intermediate application within a chain of priority to “contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.” continue reading...
Orion IP v. Hyundai: Anticipation Overturns $34 Million Verdict
Submitted by Leslie G. Murray on 06 Jun 2010In Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America, 605 F.3D 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit overturned a $34 million verdict against Hyundai Motor America because there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of no anticipation. On the issue of inequitable conduct, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of no unenforceability. continue reading...
Ariad v. Eli Lilly: The Separate Written Description Requirement Under Section 112
Submitted by Matthew L. Whipple on 21 Mar 2010In Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly & Co. 598 F.3d 1336 (2010), an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that paragraph 1 of 35 U.S.C. § 112, contains a written description requirement that is separate from the “enablement” requirement, and emphasized that “possession as shown in the disclosure” is the standard for determining whether the written description requirement has been met. continue reading...
NetMoneyIN v. VeriSign: What Has Been the Impact?
Submitted by Timothy E. Murphy on 07 Mar 2010In NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Federal Circuit addressed the question of what it means for a reference to anticipate a claim in a patent. “Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention,” held the Court, “the prior art reference - in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 - must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” NetMoneyIN. 545 F.3d at 1369. At the time, the NetMoneyIn holding clearly appeared to raise the bar for a finding of anticipation, because most courts had focused only on whether all of the claim elements were taught in a single prior art reference. continue reading...
SEB v. Montgomery Ward: Deliberate Indifference and Inducement
Submitted by Justin N. Stewart on 28 Feb 2010In its recent decision in SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit addressed the "specific intent" required to prove inducement of patent infringement. Prior decisions of the Federal Circuit indicated that inducement required a finding that the accused infringer had actual knowledge of the asserted patent. See, e.g., DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In the SEB decision, however, the Federal Circuit held that "a claim for inducement is viable even where the patentee has not produced direct evidence that the accused infringer actually knew" of the asserted patent. The Federal Circuit further held that inducement may be proved by evidence that the accused infringer deliberately disregarded a known risk of the existence of the patent. continue reading...
ResQNet.com v. Lansa: Damage Award Vacated Due to Speculative and Unreliable Methodologies
Submitted by Dana M. Herberholz on 21 Feb 2010In ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a damage award because it was based on unreliable expert witness testimony. In particular, the damage award was rejected because it was based on “speculative and unreliable evidence divorced from proof of economic harm linked to the claimed invention.” continue reading...
Wyeth v. Kappos: Recalculating Patent Term Adjustment
Submitted by Jeff C. Parry on 07 Feb 2010In Wyeth v. Kappos, 591 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit corrected the manner in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been calculating Patent Term Adjustment (PTA), which allows a patent to be enforced for time in addition to the default statutory term (20 years from filing). continue reading...
Forest Group v. Bon Tool: Fines in False Marking Cases
Submitted by Rexford A. Johnson on 10 Jan 2010In The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company, 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit held that penalties must be imposed on a per article basis in false marking cases brought under Section 292(a) of the Patent Act. Thus, district courts have discretion to assess fines up to $500 per article, although they should not impose fines that are disproportionately large. continue reading...
Hewlett-Packard v. Acceleron: “Case or Controversy” and “Patent Trolls”
Submitted by Brook B. Bond on 06 Dec 2009In Hewlett-Packard Company v. Acceleron, LLC, 587 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit appears to have imposed a more lenient standard for finding a "case or controversy" when a "patent troll" initiates communications. continue reading...