Monday February 1, 2016

Rudolph Technologies v. Camtek, No. 15-1434 – Courtroom 203

In this appeal, Camtek argues that the district court erred when it reinstated the jury’s damage award based on lost profits without reevaluating the damages in light of the new, narrowed claim construction.  Rudolph supports the reinstatement, arguing that damages should be re-evaluated only if they were based on the entire market value rule.

Tuesday February 2, 2016

Microsoft v. GeoTag, No. 15-1140 – Courtroom 201

This appeal arises from a District of Delaware case in which the court exercised subject matter jurisdiction based upon a theory of implied assertion of direct infringement i.e., that GeoTag’s suits against Google’s customers for infringement constituted an implied assertion of direct infringement against Google.

Huang v. Marklyn Group, No. 15-1587 – Courtroom 402

This appeal arises from a District of Colorado decision finding a design patent anticipated. Appellants argue that an incorrect jury instruction resulted in the district court impermissibly delegating the claim construction duty to the jury.

Wednesday February 3, 2016

IBM v. Intellectual Ventures II, No. 15-1837 – Courtroom 203

In this appeal, IBM argues that it was deprived of an opportunity to respond to a proposed claim construction of a previously undisputed term that Intellectual Ventures raised during oral argument.  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board adopted Intellectual Venture’s construction, finding it based upon previously presented evidence.

Friday February 5, 2016

Enfish v. Microsoft, No. 15-1244 – Courtroom 201

In this appeal, Enfish asserts that Microsoft is estopped from asserting its Excel product as prior art in an IPR.  Microsoft used a “printed publication” that described a software product in a prior IPR proceeding, and Enfish argues that Microsoft could have asserted the Excel product, via publications describing Excel, during the IPR proceeding in the same manner.