Articles

Results 1 to 5 of 5


Teaching Away May Preclude Motivation to Modify a Reference

USA - September 3 2021 In Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., a CAFC panel reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB (“Board”), holding that the…

Thomas L. Irving, Stacy Lewis

CAFC Clarifies Proving “Nexus” for Objective Indicia in a Design Patent Case

USA - August 26 2021 In Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., Nos. 20-2344 and 21-1019 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal…

Thomas L. Irving, Stacy Lewis

Blocking Patents: A Patent Cannot Block Itself

USA - August 20 2021 In Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., Nos. 20-1289, -1290 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2021), a CAFC panel held that the PTAB (“Board”)…

Thomas L. Irving, Stacy Lewis

Objective Indicia: Nexus Analysis May Require Evaluation of Claims as a “Unique Combination”

USA - August 13 2021 In Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., Nos. 20-1289, -1290 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2021), a CAFC panel held that the PTAB (“Board”)…

Thomas L. Irving, Stacy Lewis

Federal jurisdiction proper in a state law malpractice action where patent infringement is a “necessary element” of the state law claim

USA - February 23 2011 In Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C., No. 10-1091 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2011), the Federal Circuit held that at least one of Warrior Sports, Inc.’s (“Warrior”) malpractice claims against the law firm of Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C. (“Dickinson”) required the district court to resolve a substantive issue of patent law, thus conferring the district court with subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338.