The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s final determination that Tineco’s redesigned wet-dry surface cleaning devices do not infringe Bissell’s patents, while upholding infringement findings against the original products.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding that Tineco’s redesigned wet-dry vacuum cleaners do not infringe BISSELL’s patents, while also establishing that ITC experts may rely on source code produced in discovery but never formally admitted as a hearing exhibit under FRE 703.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding that Keysight Technologies did not violate Section 337 by importing cybersecurity products, holding that Centripetal failed to prove its own products practiced the asserted patents and waived multiple infringement arguments on appeal.
Federal Circuit affirms ITC finding of no Section 337 violation in Centripetal Networks’ cybersecurity patent dispute against Keysight Technologies, citing failure to satisfy the domestic industry technical prong.
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.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding that Universal Electronics satisfied the domestic industry requirement under Section 337 based on its investments in QuickSet technology — a patented component integrated into televisions — even though those investments did not cover the entire te
The Federal Circuit affirmed an ITC exclusion order against FS.com’s imported fiber optic equipment, holding that Corning’s high-density fiber optic patents were enabled and that the asserted claims were infringed.
The Federal Circuit held that a patent complainant at the ITC must establish a specific domestic industry article covered by a patent claim with direct evidence — general expert testimony about product operation is insufficient to satisfy the technical prong.
The Federal Circuit vacated an ITC infringement determination because the patent owner’s expert lacked the specific experience required to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art — broad engineering expertise in related fields was not enough.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s exclusion order against Comcast set-top boxes, holding that the ITC’s authority under Section 337 extends to articles that infringe after importation when the importer induces customer infringement domestically.