The Federal Circuit reversed a $1.2 billion jury verdict for Juno, holding that patent claims covering a broad functional genus of CAR-T cell receptor constructs lacked adequate written description because the specification disclosed only a few examples that could not support the full claimed scope.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the exclusion of a patent owner’s damages expert, holding that the expert’s reasonable royalty calculation failed to adequately apportion the royalty base to account only for the patented features, rather than the full value of the accused products.
The Federal Circuit held that a generic drug company can be liable for inducing infringement of a brand-name patent even when it used a “skinny label” carving out the patented indication, affirming a $235 million jury verdict against Teva.
The Federal Circuit held that a corporate affiliate’s physical stores in a district cannot establish patent venue for related web-only entities that have no employees, offices, or physical presence there.
The Federal Circuit held that a university employment agreement providing that patents “shall be the property” of the university is a statement of future intent, not an automatic present assignment, and therefore did not strip the inventor of standing to sue.
The Federal Circuit vacated PTAB decisions in Qualcomm’s IPR proceedings against Qualcomm patents, holding that the Board’s sua sponte adoption of a new claim construction — without giving the parties an opportunity to address it — violated the Administrative Procedure Act and due process.
The Federal Circuit reversed PTAB obviousness findings, clarifying that prior art references that merely warn of tradeoffs do not categorically teach away from a claimed invention, and that commercial success nexus cannot be assessed element-by-element.
The Federal Circuit granted mandamus and ordered transfer out of the Western District of Texas, holding that courts must disregard a plaintiff’s transparent pre-litigation scheme to manufacture venue by assigning limited patent rights to a newly-formed affiliate days before filing suit.
The Supreme Court held 5-4 that assignor estoppel — the doctrine preventing a patent inventor who has assigned their patent from later claiming the patent is invalid — remains a valid doctrine, but only applies when there is a direct conflict between the invalidity position and what the inventor war
The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges without Senate confirmation violated the Appointments Clause — but remedied the violation by making APJ decisions reviewable by the USPTO Director, rather than striking down the entire IPR system.