Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (No. 2016-2179, 8/10/17) (Dyk, Bryson, Chen)

August 10, 2017 6:08 PM

Dyk, J. Amgen sought review of a discovery order in an action under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) that information did not have to be disclosed related to patents not in suit but which Amgen claimed should have been provided as part of the information exchange required by the BPCIA. The Federal Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction over the discovery order under the collateral order doctrine and that the conditions for mandamus were not satisfied.

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

 

 

AIA America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals (No. 2016-2647, 8/10/17) (Newman, Lourie, Hughes)

August 10, 2017 2:24 PM

Hughes, J. The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply to requests for attorney's fees under § 285 of the Patent Act.

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

 

 

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (No. 2016-1115, -1116, -1842, 8/9/17) (Newman, Dky, Hughes)

August 9, 2017 10:51 AM

Dyk, J. Reversing district court's award of attorneys fees under Supreme Court's standard in Octane, but remanding for determination of whether attorneys fees should be awarded under Lanham Act claim under the same standard. Newman, J., dissented.

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

 

 

Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation (No. 2016-1123, 8/7/17) (Newman, Clevenger, O'Malley)

August 7, 2017 1:16 PM

Newman, J. In IPR, affirming finding of unpatentability of claims directed to an apparatus for storing and distributing episodic media files. Although the petitioner foundation may not have had standing to pursue an appeal, as the appellee, it was entitled to defend the Board's decision.

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

 

 

Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation (No. 2016-1511, 8/4/17) (Prost, Newman, Dyk)

August 4, 2017 5:26 PM

Dyk, J. In IPR, reversing finding of no anticipation ruling based on Court's construction of claims. Newman, J. dissented.

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

 

 

Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. (No. 2016-1996, 8/1/17) (Lourie, Reyna, Wallach)

August 1, 2017 10:47 AM

In IPR, reversing holding of obviousness. “What is important regarding properties that may be inherent, but unknown, is whether they are unexpected. All properties of a composition are inherent in that composition, but unexpected properties may cause what may appear to be an obvious composition to be nonobvious.” The Board further erred in its analysis of reasonable expectation of success and its reliance on “routine testing” as a basis for finding obviousness. Finally, the Board's reliance on a new piece of prior art to dismiss evidence of unexpected results constituted an improper new ground of rejection. Wallach, J., dissented in part.

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