In a claim construction ruling on a coke oven corbel patent, the court gave “above” and “gas source” their plain meaning (with a clarification for “gas source”) and rejected an indefiniteness challenge to the “third passageway” limitation.
An Eastern District of Texas judge let patent owners accuse a not-yet-released product before serving infringement contentions, but refused a temporary restraining order because their showing rested only on the defendants’ marketing statements, with no physical product or specifications to com
The PTAB held all challenged claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis-valve patent obvious because known looped strings and wires predictably improved a prior-art catheter valve’s seal.
The Federal Circuit held that Microsoft Word metadata can independently corroborate an inventor’s testimony and upheld Valtrus’s earlier conception and diligence showing.
A Massachusetts federal court construed four terms in Nike’s Flyknit patent case, including limits for footwear, flat-knit edges, heel structures, and ankle parts.
After a patent case pending since 2015, a Delaware federal judge held that claims directing bit and phase scrambling to reduce peak-to-average power ratio are patent-eligible, but that claims for calculating scrambled phases without applying them are abstract and lack an inventive concept.
The UPC upheld Align Technology’s clear-aligner patent, found Angelalign’s Torque Ridge products literally infringed, and ordered coordinated relief across seventeen countries.
In construing claims across seven ballistic-blind patents, a Delaware federal court held that “blind” is not limited to slats and “anti-ballistic” is definite, but found the term “decorative” indefinite as too subjective.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s anticipation and obviousness rulings against UPL’s fungicide patent and upheld denial of Syngenta’s proposed sanctions motion.
Sitting by designation in Delaware, Federal Circuit Judge Bryson denied dismissal on patent eligibility grounds because the complaint plausibly alleged inventive concepts, but dismissed speculative pre-suit knowledge and multi-defendant direct infringement allegations with leave to amend.
A California federal court held all asserted claims in VirtaMove’s software-containerization patents invalid because three key terms lacked objective boundaries.
A California federal court allowed projector makers’ noninfringement and most invalidity theories to proceed but dismissed patent-misuse, antitrust, and unfair-practice claims with leave to amend.
An Eastern District of Texas judge invalidated one Cloud Byte patent because the company’s infringement theory placed every claimed element in the prior art, while allowing other claims to proceed.
An Eastern District of Texas judge refused to grant Anker summary judgment on multiple NEC patents, finding factual disputes over infringement and willfulness.
An Eastern District of Texas judge held that Oribel’s limited marking efforts could not support pre-suit patent damages, while leaving infringement and lost-profit issues for trial.
A Texas federal court held that NetLens received all substantial rights needed to sue Microsoft, but not the express right to recover for infringement predating its patent license.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of a mobile-messaging patent application because the applicant failed to preserve substantive challenges to the examiner’s and PTAB’s indefiniteness rulings.
A California federal court dismissed DirecTV’s challenge to ten Adeia patents because portfolio licensing demands and confidential negotiations did not create a sufficiently concrete patent-specific controversy.
The Federal Circuit broadened the ordinary meaning of “joined,” ordered partial summary judgment of infringement on three powered cover-plate patent claims, and affirmed noninfringement on others.
The Federal Circuit held that a live patent-case indemnification dispute was not moot and qualified for Rule 60(b)(1) relief, while directing dismissal without prejudice after the parties agreed federal supplemental jurisdiction should end.
The Federal Circuit held that later experimental data may show whether a patent enabled its full scope and affirmed the invalidation of an enormous enzyme genus.
A New Jersey federal court construed “defibrotide” to require less than 10% double-stranded DNA because the patent applicants clearly surrendered broader scope during prosecution.
The Federal Circuit held that a scientifically impossible claim can be definite yet invalid because the patent cannot enable its full scope.
The Federal Circuit dismissed ParkerVision’s appeal because unresolved claims from the same patent prevented a final, appealable judgment.