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.
The Federal Circuit applied the Kessler doctrine — a nineteenth-century rule of preclusion in patent law — to bar PersonalWeb from relitigating patent infringement claims against Amazon Web Services customers after PersonalWeb had previously lost in a suit against Amazon directly, holding that customers of an adjudicated non-infringer are protected from subsequent patent suits on the same technology.
The Federal Circuit granted Google’s writ of mandamus and held that cache servers leased inside third-party ISP facilities do not create a “regular and established place of business” for patent venue purposes unless an employee or agent of the defendant is conducting business there.
The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot cancel patent claims as indefinite in inter partes review proceedings, since the IPR statute limits the Board to invalidity grounds based on prior art under Sections 102 and 103.
The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board exceeded its authority by instituting inter partes review on an obviousness ground that was not raised in the petition, violating the statutory requirement that the Board limit its review to grounds asserted by the petitioner.
The Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB obviousness ruling, holding that a patentee cannot presume a nexus between commercial success and a patent when the successful product contains significant features not covered by the patent claims.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the American Rule prevents the USPTO from recovering its attorney’s fees from unsuccessful applicants in § 145 civil actions, even though the statute requires applicants to pay “all expenses” of the proceeding.
The Federal Circuit vacated a bench-determined FRAND royalty award, holding that a standard-essential patent holder is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial on “release payments” for an implementer’s past unlicensed use of the patented technology.
The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of Idenix’s broad nucleoside compound patent for lack of enablement and written description, ruling that a claim covering a vast genus of chemical compounds is invalid when the specification does not teach how to make most of them.
The Federal Circuit vacated a $145 million patent damages award against Apple, holding that Wi-LAN’s expert improperly used entire smartphone sales as the royalty base for cellular standard-essential patents — applying the entire market value rule without adequate apportionment to the patented features — and requiring retrial on damages.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that patents covering the Contrave weight loss drug were obvious, rejecting arguments that unexpected synergistic effects between bupropion and naltrexone saved the claims from invalidity.
The Federal Circuit clarified the scope of IPR estoppel under § 315(e)(2), holding that IPR estoppel applies only to grounds based on patents or printed publications — the types of prior art available in IPR — and does not bar district court invalidity challenges based on prior art that could not have been raised in IPR, such as prior public use or on-sale evidence.
The Federal Circuit held that applying inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to patents issued before the America Invents Act does not constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment, rejecting a major constitutional challenge to the PTAB system.
The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of Amgen’s doctrine of equivalents infringement claim, holding that arguments made during patent prosecution create estoppel bars even when those arguments were not strictly necessary to secure allowance of the claims.
The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of Enzo’s nucleotide labeling patents for lack of enablement, holding that claims covering tens of thousands of possible labeled polynucleotide embodiments were not enabled when the specification disclosed only a few working examples.
The Federal Circuit addressed the PTAB’s discretionary authority under § 314(a) to deny IPR petitions based on factors including the stage of parallel district court litigation and the efficiency of institution — affirming the PTAB’s broad discretion in institution decisions and its authority to consider the NHK-Fintiv framework for balancing IPR efficiency against parallel litigation.
The Federal Circuit held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in inter partes review proceedings, following the logic of its earlier St. Regis Mohawk Tribe ruling and closing the gap between tribal and state immunity claims at the PTAB.
The Supreme Court held that the federal government is not a ‘person’ eligible to petition for inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method review under the America Invents Act.
The Federal Circuit held that the USPTO cannot reduce patent term adjustment by a period during which the applicant could not have taken any action to advance prosecution, limiting PTA deductions to periods of actual applicant delay.
The Supreme Court held that the AIA preserved pre-AIA law on the ‘on sale’ bar: a confidential commercial sale of an invention more than one year before the patent application triggers the bar, even if the invention’s details remain secret.
The Federal Circuit held that the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting cannot be used to cut short a patent term extension lawfully granted by statute, affirming Novartis’s extended patent protection for its multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment finding written description inadequacy for Nevro’s spinal cord stimulation patents, holding that the specification’s disclosure of the claimed frequency ranges combined with paresthesia-free stimulation raised genuine issues of material fact about whether a skilled artisan would have recognized the inventor’s possession of the full claimed range.
The Federal Circuit vacated a $140 million patent damages award, holding that the entire market value rule cannot be used to calculate damages when accused products have valuable features beyond the patented invention.
The Federal Circuit held that a company that had built a manufacturing facility and planned commercial activity within the scope of a challenged patent had Article III standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision, even without being accused of infringement.
Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit held that the IPR one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is triggered when a defendant is served with a patent infringement complaint, even if that complaint is later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
The Federal Circuit dismissed an IPR petitioner’s appeal for lack of Article III standing, holding that a party must show concrete plans for activity creating a substantial risk of infringement — not just status as a competitor — to have standing to challenge an adverse PTAB decision in court.
The Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision that had rejected a trade show catalog as prior art, holding that materials publicly distributed at industry events can qualify as “printed publications” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) even if they were not formally indexed or archived.
The Federal Circuit held that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be used to shield patents from inter partes review, rejecting a controversial licensing arrangement between Allergan and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe designed to avoid IPR challenges to Restasis patents.
The Supreme Court held that a patent holder can recover lost foreign profits as damages when a domestic act of infringement under § 271(f) caused those foreign profits to be lost.
The Federal Circuit addressed claim differentiation and claim construction for Teleflex’s coronary sinus lead placement patent — holding that where a dependent claim adds a specific limitation, the corresponding independent claim must be broader, and applying this principle to construe lead placement method claims in a dispute between cardiac device makers.
The Federal Circuit held that in states with multiple judicial districts, a domestic corporation “resides” for patent venue purposes only in the single district where its principal place of business or registered office is located, tightening venue rules after TC Heartland.
The Federal Circuit held that the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), does not apply to alien (foreign) corporate defendants, who remain subject to suit for patent infringement in any U.S. district where they are subject to personal jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held 5-4 that when the USPTO institutes an inter partes review, it must adjudicate every claim challenged in the petition — rejecting the PTO’s practice of instituting IPR on only some of the challenged claims and leaving other claims unreviewable.
The Supreme Court held 7-2 that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment — because patents are public franchises granted by the government, which may reclaim or modify them through an executive agency proceeding without a jury trial, upholding the America Invents Act’s most powerful patent challenge mechanism.
The Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB obviousness ruling against a wireless networking patent, holding that “common sense” cannot substitute for real evidentiary support when a prior art reference is missing a claimed limitation, particularly for complex technology.
The Federal Circuit vacated a claim preclusion ruling against SimpleAir, holding that filing a terminal disclaimer in a continuation patent does not create a presumption that the continuation’s claims are patentably indistinct from the parent, and courts must compare actual claim scope before finding preclusion.
The Federal Circuit confirmed that patent damages can be apportioned through the royalty rate rather than the royalty base, but vacated a $48 million award because the patent owner’s damages expert failed to adequately explain how the Georgia-Pacific factors supported the proposed royalty rate.
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled Achates and held that §315(b) time-bar determinations by the PTAB are subject to judicial review, rejecting the argument that all IPR institution decisions are unreviewable.
An en banc Federal Circuit held that in inter partes review proceedings, the petitioner — not the patent owner — bears the burden of proving that proposed amended claims are unpatentable, overturning years of PTAB practice that had effectively blocked most patent owner amendment efforts.
The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of non-infringement in a divided infringement case, holding that the ‘direction and control’ standard from Akamai v. Limelight could be satisfied where one party conditions participation in an activity on performance of a method step by another party — applying the standard to luggage locks and TSA inspection agreements.
The Federal Circuit granted mandamus to Cray and set forth a three-part test for what constitutes a ‘regular and established place of business’ under the patent venue statute — rejecting the Eastern District of Texas’s expansive four-factor test and clarifying that employees’ homes and remote workers in a district do not, by themselves, establish venue.
The Federal Circuit held that the federal government qualifies as a ‘person’ under the America Invents Act and may petition for covered business method (CBM) review at the PTAB — a ruling the Supreme Court reversed in 2019, holding that the government is not a ‘person’ for AIA post-grant proceedings.
The Federal Circuit held that IPR estoppel under § 315(e)(2) does not extend to prior art grounds based on patents or printed publications that the petitioner could not have raised in IPR — specifically that prior art systems and physical products (which cannot be raised in IPR) are not subject to the IPR estoppel bar in subsequent district court litigation.
The Supreme Court held 7-1 that authorized patent sales both domestically and abroad exhaust all U.S. patent rights in the sold item — eliminating Lexmark’s attempt to use conditional patent licenses to control post-sale use and the Federal Circuit’s rule allowing foreign sales to preserve domestic patent rights.
The Supreme Court held that the patent venue statute, § 1400(b), is the sole provision governing where patent suits may be filed, and that a corporation ‘resides’ only in its state of incorporation for patent venue purposes.
The Federal Circuit held that a secret commercial sale — where the existence of the sale agreement was publicly disclosed but the details of the invention were kept confidential — triggers the on-sale bar under the AIA, finding that the America Invents Act did not change the rule that confidential sales can invalidate patents when the sale’s existence is public.
The Supreme Court held 7-1 that laches cannot be used as a defense to patent infringement that occurred within the six-year statute of limitations — extending Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (copyright) to patent law and eliminating a long-standing Federal Circuit precedent that had allowed laches to bar infringement suits brought years after the patent holder learned of the infringement.
The Federal Circuit held that when a patentee satisfies all four Panduit factors for lost profits — including proving demand driven by the patented feature and no acceptable non-infringing substitutes — no further separate apportionment of those profits is required, because the Panduit analysis inherently ties the damages to the patented features’ value.
The Supreme Court held that supplying a single component of a multi-component patented invention from the United States does not trigger liability under § 271(f)(1), which requires supplying ‘all or a substantial portion’ of the components.
The Federal Circuit reversed a $93 million foreign lost-profits award for ION’s domestic infringement under Section 271(f), holding that the presumption against extraterritoriality barred recovery for overseas contracts WesternGeco would have won absent the infringement — a ruling the Supreme Court reversed in 2018.