Apls South, LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co. (No. 2013-1452, -1488, 2014-1147, -1426, 6/5/15) (Lourie, Moore, Chen)

June 5, 2015 9:44 AM

Chen, J. Vacating judgment and remanding with instructions to dismiss due to lack of standing. “Precedent dictates that the original [license] agreement’s field of use restriction is fatal to [plaintiff’s] argument that it had standing to file this action.” Also, plaintiff’s attempt to cure its standing deficiency with a nunc pro tunc assignment was unsuccessful. 

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Global Traffic Technologies v. Morgan (No. 2014-1537, 2014-1566, 6/4/15) (Dyk, O'Malley, Taranto)

June 4, 2015 2:13 PM

O’Malley, J. Reversing award of enhanced damages. Regarding enhanced damages, “the district court should have considered whether Appellants acted ‘despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.’ This requires analysis of all the infringer’s non-infringement and invalidity defenses, even if those defenses were developed for litigation.” Also upholding the jury’s finding that patentee complied with the marking statute. “[W]e hold that, when a patentee marks the packaging rather than the article, the district court should evaluate the specific character of the article at issue… This factual inquiry regarding the character of the patented article, moreover, may be submitted to a jury…” Also affirming finding of infringement. 

WilmerHale represented the Defendants-Appellants.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Shire Development v. Watson Pharmaceuticals (No. 2013-1409, 6/3/15) (Prost, Chen, Hughes)

May 18, 2015 4:12 PM

Hughes, J. On remand from the Supreme Court, reversing district court construction and findings of infringement, and remanding. In Teva, the Supreme Court "did not hold that a deferential standard of review is triggered any time a district court hears or receives extrinsic evidence. Here, there is no indication that the district court made any factual findings that underlie its constructions… Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s constructions … and its subsequent infringement determination, and we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion."

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.