Articles

Results 1 to 5 of 12
Most popular |Most recent


Baseless infringement allegations (by an NPE) warrants “exceptional” case

USA - August 31 2011 Affirming the district court’s finding that plaintiff, Eon-Net’s, infringement claims were objectively baseless and made in bad faith, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld sanctions totaling over $600,000 against Eon-Net and its attorneys.

Common sense variation is unpatentable

USA - May 28 2011 Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a common-sense variation of known technology is unpatentable.

Claim construction: too much structure will spoil the brew

USA - April 29 2011 In affirming-in-part grants of summary judgment on non-infringement by two separate district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated the role of a district court in claim construction is to give meaning to the limitations actually contained in the claims, “not to redefine claim recitations or to read limitations into the claims”.

Standard used for objective baselessness under 35 USC §285 is the same as objective recklessness under 35 USC §284

USA - January 31 2011 In reversing a district court ruling finding a case “exceptional” and awarding fees to a successful defendant, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that infringement action was not objectively baseless and, thus, not “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. §285.

Applicants can submit new evidence in §145 actions

USA - November 30 2010 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 6-2-1 en banc ruling, held that 35 U.S.C. §145 imposes no special limitation on a patent applicant’s right to introduce new evidence in a civil action against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Charles J. Hawkins, Paul Devinsky.