The Federal Circuit reversed a judgment invalidating Teva’s method-of-treatment patents covering anti-CGRP antibodies for migraines, distinguishing Amgen v. Sanofi and reinstating a jury verdict against Eli Lilly.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s cancellation of MRI’s outdoor display cooling patent claims via Rule 36, completing Samsung’s successful IPR challenge to the patent family.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s cancellation of AG 18’s networked gaming patent claims asserted against DraftKings (now DK Crown Holdings) via Rule 36 summary affirmance.
The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of noninfringement of a multi-core processor patent, holding that a pretrial stipulation establishing a 70% U.S. nexus applied to infringement — not just damages — and that prosecution history did not clearly disclaim the broader scope of apparatus claim
The Federal Circuit affirmed that U.S. Patent No. 8,458,689 — covering methods and apparatus for reprogramming automotive engine controllers — was invalid under the pre-AIA on-sale bar, holding that source code commands are not hearsay and that selling a device embodying a patented method triggers t
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that Universal Electronics’ voice-input remote control patent claims were unpatentable as obvious, in the latest chapter of the long-running patent battle between the two consumer electronics companies.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB dismissal of cigar maker Fuente Marketing Ltd.s opposition to a vape-pen design mark, holding that despite overlapping goods and channels, the distinct commercial impression of Vaporous Technologies stick-figure design mark defeated likelihood of confusion with
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that patent claims directed to operating an information exchange are ineligible abstract ideas under Section 101, holding that generic computing instructions lack an inventive concept.
The Federal Circuit dismissed ironSource’s appeal of a PTAB post-grant review decision, holding that ironSource failed to demonstrate Article III standing because its evidence did not address the substitute claims actually at issue.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding that imported marine air conditioning systems did not violate Section 337, holding that the asserted patent claims were anticipated by prior art and the accused products did not infringe remaining claims.