More

Other

PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. NETSCOUT SYSTEMS, INC., Appeal No. 2022-2064 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024).  Before Lourie, Hughes, and Stark.  Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap). (Finality of Case)

INTELLECTUAL TECH LLC v. ZEBRA TECHS. CORP., Appeal No. 2022-2207 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2024).  Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes.  Appealed from W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright). (Standing)

INTELLECTUAL TECH LLC v. ZEBRA TECHS. CORP事件、上訴番号 2022-2207 (CAFC、2024年5月1日)。 Prost裁判官、Taranto裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。テキサス州西部地区地方裁判所(Albright裁判官)による判決を不服としての上訴。(資格)

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP. v. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD., Appeal No. 2022-1877 (Fed. Cir. March 25, 2024).  Before Lourie, Stoll, and Cunningham.  Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Gilliam, Jr.). (35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor)

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP. v. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.事件、上訴番号2022-1877 (CAFC、2024年3月25日)。Lourie裁判官、Stoll裁判官、Cunningham裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Gilliam, Jr.裁判官)による判決を不服としての上訴。(35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)に基づく保護の提供)

ROKU, INC. v. ITC, Appeal No. 2022-1386 (Fed. Cir. January 19, 2024).  Before Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll.  Appealed from the USITC. (Unfair Import Trade — Ownership and Domestic Industry Requirements)

ROKU, INC. v. ITC事件、上訴番号 2022-1386 (CAFC、2024年1月19日)。Dyk裁判官、Hughes裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。USITCの判決を不服としての上訴。(不正輸入貿易—所有権と米国国内産業の要件)

NETFLIX, INC. v. DIVX, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1203, 2022-1204 (Fed. Cir. October 25, 2023).  Before Dyk, Linn, and Chen.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Inter Partes Review)

NETFLIX, INC. v. DIVX, LLC事件、上訴番号2022-1203、2022-1204(CAFC、2023年10月25日)。Dyk裁判官、Linn裁判官、Chen裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(当事者系レビュー)

IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Appeal Nos. 2021-1858, 2021-1859, 2021-1860 (Fed. Cir. November 3, 2023).  Before Reyna, Lourie, and Dyk.  Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Freeman). (Objectively Baseless Case)

IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC事件、上訴番号2021-1858、2021-1859、2021-1860 (CAFC、2023年11月3日)。Reyna裁判官、Lourie裁判官、Dyk裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Freeman裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(客観的に根拠のない事件)

CYNTEC COMPANY, LTD. v. CHILISIN ELECTRONICS CORP., Appeal No. 2022-1873 (Fed. Cir. October 16, 2023).  Before Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham.  Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Hamilton). (Expert Evidence)

CYNTEC COMPANY, LTD. v. CHILISIN ELECTRONICS CORP.事件、上訴番号 2022-1873 (CAFC、2023年10月16日)。Moore裁判官、Stoll裁判官、Cunningham裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Hamilton裁判官)による判決を不服としての上訴。(専門家の証拠)

NETFLIX, INC. v. DIVX, LLC, Appeal No. 2022-1138 (Fed. Cir. September 11, 2023). Before Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appealed from PTAB. (Analogous Art)

NETFLIX, INC. v. DIVX, LLC事件、上訴番号2022-1138(CAFC、2023年9月11日)。Hughes裁判官、Stoll裁判官、Stark裁判官による審理。PTABによる決定を不服としての上訴。(類似技術)

AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Appeal Nos. 2022-1532, 2022-1533 (Fed. Cir. August 7, 2023). Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Inter Partes Review)

AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC.事件、上訴番号 2022-1532、2022-1533 (CAFC、2023年8月7日)。Lourie裁判官、Dyk裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理。PTABによる決定を不服としての上訴。(当事者系レビュー)

IN RE FLOAT’N’GRILL LLC, Appeal No. 2022-1438 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2023).  Before Prost, Linn, and Cunningham.  Appealed from the PTAB. (Original Patent Requirement in Reissue Patents)

IN RE FLOAT’N’GRILL LLC事件、上訴番号 2022-1438 (CAFC、2023年7月12日)。 Prost裁判官、Linn裁判官、Cunningham裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(再発行特許における原特許要件)

INGURAN, LLC v. ABS GLOBAL, INC., Appeal No. 22-1385 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2023).  Before Lourie, Bryson, and Reyna.  Appealed from W.D. Wis. (Judge Conley). (RES JUDICATA)

INGURAN, LLC v. ABS GLOBAL, INC.事件、上訴番号 22-1385 (CAFC、2023年7月5日)。Lourie裁判官、Bryson裁判官、Reyna裁判官による審理。ウィスコンシン州西部地区地方裁判所(Conley裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(既判力)

BLUE GENTIAN, LLC v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., Appeal Nos. 2021-2316, 2021-2317 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2023).  Before Prost, Chen, and Stark.  Appealed from D.N.J. (Judge Hillman). (Inventorship)

BLUE GENTIAN, LLC v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC.事件、上訴番号 2021-2316、2021-2317 (CAFC、2023年6月9日)。Prost裁判官、Chen裁判官、Stark裁判官による審理。ニュージャージ州地区地方裁判所(Hillman裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(発明者記載要件)

SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Appeal No. 2021-1981 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2023). Before Reyna, Mayer, and Cunningham. Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Analogous Art Test)

SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.事件、上訴番号 2021-1981 (CAFC、2023年5月9日)。Reyna裁判官、Mayer裁判官、Cunningham裁判官による審理。 PTABよる決定を不服としての上訴。(類似技術の審査)

HIP, INC. v. HORMEL FOODS CORP., Appeal No. 22-1696 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2023).  Before Lourie, Clevenger, and Taranto.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Connolly). (Inventorship)

HIP, INC. v. HORMEL FOODS CORP.事件、上訴番号 22-1696 (CAFC、2023年5月2日)。Lourie裁判官、Clevenger裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Connolly裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(発明者権限)

INTEL CORP. v. PACT XPP SCHWIEZ AG, Appeal No. 2022-1037 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2023). Before Newman, Prost, and Hughes. Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Motivation to Combine)

INTEL CORP. v. PACT XPP SCHWIEZ AG事件、上訴番号2022-1037 (CAFC、2023年3月13日)。Newman裁判官、Prost裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(組み合わせる動機づけ)

PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC. v. PREMIUM WATERS, INC., Appeal No. 2021-2244 (Fed. Cir. December 19, 2022).  Before Newman, Stoll, and Stark.  Appealed from W.D. Wis. (Judge Conley). (Summary Judgment Standard)

PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC. v. PREMIUM WATERS, INC.事件、上訴番号2021-2244 (CAFC、2022年12月19日)。Newman裁判官、Stoll裁判官、Stark裁判官による審理。ウィスコンシン州西部地区地方裁判所(Conley裁判官)の判決を不服としての判決。(正式な審理なしでの判決を求める申し立ての基準)

GOOGLE LLC v. HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, Appeal No. 2021-2218 (Fed. Cir. December 8, 2022).  Before Moore, Chen, and Stoll.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Collateral Estoppel)

GOOGLE LLC v. HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL事件、上訴番号2021-2218 (CAFC、2022年12月8日)。Moore裁判官、Chen裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(2次的禁反言(COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL))

PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. WEBER, INC., Appeal No. 2021-1942, 1975 (Fed. Cir. September 27, 2022).  Before Prost, Reyna, and Stark.  Appealed from the P.T.A.B. (Administrative Procedures Act)

PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. WEBER, INC.事件、上訴番号2021-1942、1975 (CAFC、2022年9月27日)。Prost裁判官、 Reyna裁判官、Stark裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(行政手続法)

SAWSTOP HOLDING LLC v. VIDAL, Appeal Nos. 2021-1537, 2021-2105 (Fed. Cir. September 14, 2022).  Before Newman, Linn, and Chen.  Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge Brinkema). (Patent Term Adjustment)

SAWSTOP HOLDING LLC v. VIDAL事件、上訴番号 2021-1537、2021-2105  (CAFC、2022年9月14日)。Newman裁判官、Linn裁判官、Chen裁判官による審理。バージニア州東部地区地方裁判所(Brinkema裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許期間調整)

HOLOGIC, INC. v. MINERVA SURGICAL, INC., Appeal Nos. 2019-2054, -2081 (Fed. Cir. August 11, 2022).  Before Stoll, Clevenger, and Wallach.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Bataillon). (Assignor Estoppel)

HOLOGIC, INC. v. MINERVA SURGICAL, INC.事件、上訴番号2019-2054, -2081 (CAFC、2022年8月11日)。Stoll裁判官、Clevenger裁判官、Wallach裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Bataillon裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(譲渡人禁反言)

KAMSTRUP A/S v. AXIOMA METERING UAB, Appeal No. 2021-1923 (Fed. Cir. August 12, 2022).  Before Reyna, Mayer, and Cunningham.  Appealed from PTAB. (Product-By-Process)

KAMSTRUP A/S v. AXIOMA METERING UAB事件、上訴番号2021-1923 (CAFC、2022年8月12日)。Reyna裁判官、Mayer裁判官、Cunningham裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴 (プロダクト-バイ-プロセス)

LG ELECTRONICS INC. v. IMMERVISION, INC., Appeal Nos. 2021-2037, 2021-2038 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2022).  Before Stoll, Newman, and Cunningham.  Appealed from PTAB. (Error As Prior Art Teaching)

LG ELECTRONICS INC. v. IMMERVISION, INC.事件、上訴番号2021-2037、2021-2038 (CAFC、2022年7月11日)。Stoll裁判官、Newman裁判官、Cunningham裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(先行技術の教示としての誤り)

CLEARONE, INC. v. SHURE ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, Appeal No. 2021-1517 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2022).  Before Moore, Newman, and Hughes.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Indefiniteness, Duty to Disclose)

CLEARONE, INC. v. SHURE ACQUISITION HOLDINGS事件、上訴番号2021-1517 (CAFC、2022年6月1日)。Moore裁判官、Newman裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(不明瞭性, 開示義務)

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appeal No. 2021-1888 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2022).  Before Dyk, Taranto and Cunningham.  Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge Morgan). (Recusal)

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.事件、上訴番号 2021-1888 (CAFC、2022年6月23日)。Dyk裁判官、Taranto裁判官、Cunningham裁判官による審理。バージニア州東部地区地方裁判所(Morgan裁判官)による判決を不服としての上訴。(退任)

ALARM.COM INC. v. HIRSCHFELD, Appeal No. 2021-2102 (Fed. Cir. February 24, 2022).  Before Taranto, Chen, and Cunningham.  Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge Hilton). (Appealability of ex Parte Reexamination Vacatur)

ALARM.COM INC. v. HIRSCHFELD事件、上訴番号2021-2102 (CAFC、2022年2月24日)。Taranto裁判官、Chen裁判官、Cunningham裁判官による審理。バージニア州東部地区地方裁判所(Hilton裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(査定系再審査の取り消しに関する上訴権)

INTEL CORP. v. QUALCOMM INC., Appeal No. 2020-1664 (Fed. Cir. December 28, 2021).  Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes.  Appealed from the PTAB. (Standing)

INTEL CORP. v. QUALCOMM INC.事件、上訴番号2020-1664(CAFC、2021年12月28日)。Prost裁判官、Taranto裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(当事者適格)

APPLE INC. v QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Appeal Nos. 2020-1683, 2020-1763, 2020-1764, 2020-1827 (Fed. Cir. November 10, 2021).  Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll.  Appealed from PTAB. (Standing)

APPLE INC. v QUALCOMM INCORPORATED事件、上訴番号2020-1683、2020-1763、2020-1764、2020-1827 (CAFC、2021年11月10日)。Newman裁判官、Prost裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(当事者適格)

MOBILITY WORKX, LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC, Appeal No. 2020-1441 (Fed. Cir. October 13, 2021).  Before Newman, Schall, and Dyk.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Due Process)

MOBILITY WORKX, LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC事件、上訴番号2020-1441(CAFC、2021年10月13日)。Newman裁判官、Schall裁判官、Dyk裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(デュープロセス)

LUBBY HOLDINGS LLC v. CHUNG, Appeal No. 2019-2286 (Fed. Cir. September 1, 2021).  Before Newman, Dyk, and Wallach.  Appealed from C.D. Cal. (Judge Klausner). (Marking Requirement)

LUBBY HOLDINGS LLC v. CHUNG事件、上訴番号2019-2286(CAFC、2021年9月1日)。Newman裁判官、Dyk裁判官、Wallach裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州中央地区地方裁判所(Klausner裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(表示要件)

ANDRA GROUP, LP v. VICTORIA’S SECRET STORES, LLC, Appeal No. 2020-2009 (Fed. Cir. August 3, 2021).  Before Reyna, Mayer, and Hughes.  Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Mazzant, III) (Venue)

ANDRA GROUP, LP v. VICTORIA’S SECRET STORES, LLC事件、上訴番号2020-2009(CAFC、2021年8月3日)。Reyna裁判官、Mayer裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。テキサス州東部地区地方裁判所(Mazzant, III裁判官)による審理を不服としての上訴。(裁判地)

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. INTEL CORPORATION, Appeal Nos. 2020-1589, 2020-1590, 2020-1591, 2020-1592, 2020-1593, 2020-1594 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2021).  Before Moore, Reyna, and Stoll.  Appealed from the PTAB. (Claim Construction; Procedural Rights)

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. INTEL CORPORATION事件、上訴番号2020-1589、2020-1590、 2020-1591、2020-1592、2020-1593、2020-1594 (CAFC、2021年7月27日)。Moore裁判官、Reyna裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。 PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(クレームの解釈;手続き上の権利)

BOT M8 LLC v. SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appeal No. 2020-2218 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2021).  Before Dyk, Linn and O’Malley.  Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Alsup). (Sufficiency of Pleadings)

BOT M8 LLC v. SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA事件、上訴番号2020-2218(CAFC、2021年7月13日)。Dyk裁判官、Linn裁判官、O’Malley裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Alsup裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(訴答手続きに基づく侵害主張の十分性)

MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC., Appeal No. 20-440 (June 29, 2021). Kagan, Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh.  Appealed from Federal Circuit (Stoll, K., Wallach, E., Clevenger, R.).  (Assignor Estoppel)

MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC.事件、上訴番号20-440 (2021年6月29日)。Kagan裁判官、Roberts裁判官、Breyer裁判官、Sotomayor裁判官、 Kavanaugh裁判官による審理。CAFC(K. Stoll裁判官、E. Wallach裁判官、R. Clevenger裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(譲渡人禁反言)

SPEEDTRACK, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Appeal Nos. 2020-1573, 2020-1660 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2021).  Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna.  Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge White). (Prosecution History Esptoppel)

SPEEDTRACK, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.事件、上訴番号2020-1573、2020-1660 (CAFC、2021年6月3日)。Prost裁判官、Bryson裁判官、Reyna裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Judge White)の判決を不服としての上訴。(審査経過禁反言)

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC., Appeal No. 2020-2087 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2021).  Before Dyk, Bryson, and Hughes.  Appealed from C.D. Cal. (Judge Wilson). (Rule 60 (b)(3) Motion to Vacate)

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC.事件、上訴番号2020-2087 (CAFC、2021年5月5日)。Dyk裁判官、 Bryson裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。 カリフォルニア州中央地区地方裁判所の判決を不服としての上訴(Wilson裁判官)。(規則60(b)(3)に基づく無効申し立て)

RAIN COMPUTING, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Appeal Nos. 2020-1646, -1656 (Fed. Cir. March 2, 2021).  Before Lourie, Dyk and Moore.  Appealed from D. Mass. (Judge Stearns).  (Means-Plus-Function)

RAIN COMPUTING, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.事件、上訴番号 2020-1646、 -1656 (CAFC、2021年3月2日)。Lourie裁判官、Dyk裁判官、Moore裁判官による審理。マサチューセッツ地区地方裁判所(Stearns裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。 (ミーンズ-プラス-ファンクション)

CHUDIK v. HIRSHFELD, Appeal No. 2020-1833 (Fed. Cir. February 8, 2021).  Before Taranto, Bryson, and Hughes.  Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge Trenga).  (Patent Term Adjustment)

CHUDIK v. HIRSHFELD事件、上訴番号2020-1833 (CAFC、2021年2月8日)。Taranto裁判官、Bryson裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。バージニア州東部地区地方裁判所(Trenga裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許期間調整)

ABS GLOBAL, INC. v. CYTONOME/ST, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2051 (Fed. Cir. January 6, 2021).  Before Prost, Moore, and Stoll.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  (Mootness, Standing)

ABS GLOBAL, INC. v. CYTONOME/ST, LLC事件、上訴番号2019-2051(CAFC、2021年1月6日)。Prost裁判官、Moore裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(争訟性の喪失, 当事者適格)

SIONYX LLC v. HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K., Appeal Nos. 2019-2359, 2020-1217 (Fed. Cir. December 7, 2020).  Before Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach.  Appealed from D. Mass. (Judge Saylor IV).   (Patent Ownership)

SIONYX LLC v. HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K.事件、上訴番号2019-2359、2020-1217(CAFC、2020年12月7日)。Lourie裁判官、 Reyna裁判官、Wallach裁判官による審理。マサチューセッツ州地区地方裁判所(Saylor IV裁判官)による判決を不服としての上訴。(特許所有権)

DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC, v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC, Appeal No. 2020-1104 (Fed. Cir. November 9, 2020).  Before Prost, Dyk and Hughes.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness; Analogous Art)

DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC, v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC事件、上訴番号2020-1104(CAFC、2020年11月9日)。Prost裁判官、 Dyk裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。 PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(自明性; 類似技術)

IN RE GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1828 (Fed. Cir. November 13, 2020). Before Taranto, Chen, and Stoll. Appealed from PTAB.  (Forfeiture/Waiver)

TECSEC, INC. v. ADOBE INC., Appeal No. 2019-2192 (Fed. Cir. October 23, 2020).  Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto.  Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge O’Grady).  (§101 Eligibility Damages)

NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Appeal No. 2018-2338 (Fed. Cir. September 24, 2020).  Before Prost, Newman and Bryson.  Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Schroeder, III).  (Statutory Estoppel, Claim Broadening)

PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC. v. AVX CORP., Appeals Nos. 2019-2181 and 2019-2182 (Fed. Cir. September 23, 2020). Before O’Malley, Bryson, and Reyna. Appealed from PTAB.  (Nonobviousness)

GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1 v. TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LTD., Appeal No. 2019-2215 (Fed. Cir. August 4, 2020).  Before Prost, Newman, and O’Malley.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Bataillon).  (Standard EssentialityInfringement)

GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1 v. TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LTD.事件、上訴番号2019-2215 (CAFC、2020年8月4日)。Prost裁判官、Newman裁判官、O’Malley裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Bataillon裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(標準必須性侵害)

DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE, INC. v. ONO PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., Appeal No. 2019-2050 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2020).  Before Newman, Lourie, and Stoll.  Appealed from D. Mass. (Judge Saris).  (Inventorship)

UNILOC 2017 LLC v. APPLE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2019-1922, 2019-1923, 2019-1925, 2019-1926  (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2020).  Before Mayer, Prost, and Taranto.  Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Alsup).  (Motions to Seal)

FITBIT, INC. v. VALENCELL, INC., Appeal No. 2019-1048 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2020).  Before Newman, Dyk, and Reyna.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Inter Partes Review)

IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1918 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2020).  Before Wallach, Bryson, and Taranto.  Appealed from N.D. Cal (Judge Freeman).  (Kessler Doctrine)

COCHLEAR BONE ANCHORED SOLUTIONS AB v. OTICON MEDICAL AB, Appeal Nos. 2019-1105, -1106 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2020).  Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Claim Construction, IPR Scope)

COCHLEAR BONE ANCHORED SOLUTIONS AB v. OTICON MEDICAL AB事件、上訴番号2019-1105、-1106 (CAFC、2020年5月15日)。Newman裁判官、O’Malley裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(クレームの解釈IPRの範囲)

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. v. PRISUA ENGINEERING CORP., Appeal Nos. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. February 4, 2020).  Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson.  Appealed from PTAB.  (IPR Scope)

ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY INC. v. ITRON NETWORKED SOLUTIONS INC., Appeal No. 2019-1061 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020).  Before Reyna, Moore, and Taranto.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (IPR Institution)

ARCTIC CAT INC. v. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS INC., Appeal No. 2019-1080 (Fed. Cir. February 19, 2020).  Before Lourie, Moore, and Stoll.  Appealed from S.D. Fla. (Judge Bloom).  (Patent Marking)

EKO BRANDS, LLC v. ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ ENTERPRISES, INC.Appeals Nos. 2018-2215 and 2018-2254 (Fed. Cir. January 13, 2020).  Before Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes.  Appealed from W.D. Wash. (Judge Donohue).  (Attorney’s Fees)

AMGEN INC. v. AMNEAL PHARM. LLC, Appeal No. 2018-2414 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2020).  Before Newman, Lourie, and Taranto.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Goldberg).  (Claim Construction, Prosecution History Esptoppel)

AMGEN INC. v. AMNEAL PHARM. LLC事件、上訴番号2018-2414 (CAFC、2020年1月7日)。Newman裁判官、Lourie裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Goldberg裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(クレームの解釈, 審査経過禁反言)

AIRBUS S.A.S. v. FIREPASS CORP., Appeal No. 2019-1803 (Fed. Cir. November 8, 2019).  Before Lourie, Stoll, and Moore.  Appealed from PTAB. (Analogous ArtObviousness)

AIRBUS S.A.S. v. FIREPASS CORP.事件、上訴番号2019-1803 (CAFC、2019年11月8日)。 Lourie裁判官、Stoll裁判官、Moore裁判官による審理。 PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(類似技術自明性)

ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. October 31, 2019).  Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Appointments Clause)

OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC v. APOTEX INC., Appeal No. 2018-1925 (Fed. Cir. October 4, 2019).  Before Newman, Taranto, and Stoll.  Appealed from PTAB. (Obviousness; Reasonable Expectation Of Success)

OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC v. APOTEX INC.事件、上訴番号18-1925 (CAFC、2019年10月4日)。  Newman裁判官、Taranto裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。PTABからの上訴。(自明性; 成功するであろうという理屈に適った期待)

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. ARKEMA INC., Appeal No. 2018-1151, 2018-1153 (Fed. Cir. October 1, 2019).  Before Newman, Reyna and Hughes.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Post-grant Review, Certificate of Correction)

SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Appeal No. 2018-1635 (Fed. Cir. September 25, 2019).  Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (CBM Review Eligibility)

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC. v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC., Appeal No. 2018-1804, 2018-1808, 2018-1809 (Fed. Cir. August 14, 2019).  Before Lourie, Moore and Taranto.  Appealed from D. N.J. (Judge Shipp). (Statutory DisclaimersObviousness)

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC. v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.事件、上訴番号2018-1804、2018-1808、2018-1809 (CAFC、2019年8月14日)。Lourie裁判官、Moore裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理。ニュージャージー州地区地方裁判所(Shipp裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(法定放棄自明性)

CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER, Appeal No. 2018-1167 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019). Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna. Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Retroactive Application Of IPR; Obviousness)

CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER事件、上訴番号2018-1167 (CAFC、2019年7月30日)。Prost裁判官、 Bryson裁判官、Reyna裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(IPRの遡及的適用; 自明性)

AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION v. FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1613 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2019).  Before Hughes, Schall and Stoll.  Appealed from E.D. Mich. (Judge Michelson). (Design Patent Subject Matter Eligibility)

ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC. v. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC., Appeal Nos. 2017-2498 -2499, -2545 and -2546 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2019).  Before Prost, Reyna, and Wallach.  On appeal from D. Del. (Chief Judge Stark).  (Enabling Disclosure)

FOREST LABS., LLC v. SIGMAPHARM LABS., LLC, Appeal Nos. 2017-2369, -2370, -2372, -2373, -2374, -2375, -2376, -2389, -2412, -2436, -2438, -2440, -2441 (Fed. Cir. March 14, 2019).  Before Prost, Dyk, and Moore.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Robinson).  (Claim InterpretationObviousness)

FOREST LABS., LLC v. SIGMAPHARM LABS., LLC事件、上訴番号2017-2369、-2370、-2372、-2373、 -2374、-2375、-2376、-2389、-2412、-2436、-2438、-2440、-2441 (CAFC、2019年3月14日)。Prost裁判官、Dyk裁判官、Moore裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Robinson裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(クレームの解釈自明性)

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS v. RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES, Appeal No. 2017-2088 (Fed. Cir. February 1, 2019). Before Lourie, Bryson, and Wallach. Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (IPR Joinder; Obviousness)

ERICSSON, INC. v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES LLC, Appeal No. 2016-1671 (Fed. Cir. May 29, 2018).  Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach.  Appealed from the PTAB.  (Expert OpinionAnticipation)

D THREE ENTERPRISES, LLC v. SUNMODO CORPORATION, Appeal Nos. 2017-1909 and -1910 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2018).  Before Reyna, Clevenger and Wallach.  Appealed from D. Colo. (Judge Shaffer).  (PriorityWritten Description)

JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION v. MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appeal No. 2017-1502 (Fed. Cir. April 19, 2018).  Before Prost, Reyna, and Wallach.  Appealed from E.D. Ark. (Judge Wilson).  (Affirmative DefensesEx Parte Reexamination)

ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA, LLC, v. THALES VISIONIX, INC. Appeal No. 2017-1355 (Fed. Cir. February 6, 2018).  Before Wallach, Moore, and Stoll.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Obviousness; Substantial Evidence)

PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC. v. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP.,  Appeal Nos. 2016-2607, 2016-2650 (Fed. Cir. November 21, 2017).  Before Dyk, Moore, and Taranto.  Appealed from S.D. Cal. (Judge Huff).  (Indefiniteness; Intervening Rights)

CUMBERLAND PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC, Appeal Nos. 2016-1155, -1259 (Fed. Cir. January 26, 2017).  Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto.  Appealed from N.D. Ill. (Judge Pallmeyer).  (Derivation; Obviousness)

UCB, INC. v. YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., Appeal No. 2015-1957 (Fed. Cir. September 8, 2016).  Before Newman, Lourie and Chen.  Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge Brinkema).  (Claim Construction, Prosecution Estoppel)

VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. VEEAM SOFTWARE CORP., Appeal No. 2015-1894 (Fed. Cir. August 30, 2016).  Before Lourie, O’Malley and Taranto.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Obviousness; IPR Substitute Claims)

IN RE: MAGNUM OIL TOOLS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Appeal No. 2015-1300 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016).  Before Newman, O’Malley and Chen.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (Inter Partes Review; Obviousness)

RAPID LITIGATION MANAGEMENT LTD. v. CELLZDIRECT, INC., Appeal No. 2015‑1570 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016).  Before Prost, Moore and Stoll.  Appealed from N.D. Ill. (Judge Shadur).  (Patent Eligible Subject MatterLaw of Nature)

PROFECTUS TECHNOLOGY LLC, v. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., Appeal Nos. 2015-1016, -1018, -1019 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2016).  Before Moore, Reyna, and Wallach.  Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Schneider).  (Claim Construction, Summary Judgment)

SHAW INDUSTRIES GROUP, INC. v. AUTOMATED CREEL SYSTEMS, INC., Appeal Nos. 2015-1116, 2015-1119. (Fed. Cir. March 23, 2016).  Before Moore, Reyna and Wallach.  Appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  (IPR, Obviousness)

CONVOLVE, INC. v. COMPAQ COMPUTER CORP., Appeal No. 2014-1732 (Fed. Cir. February 10, 2016).  Before Dyk, Taranto, and Hughes.  Appealed from S.D.N.Y. (Judge Daniels).  (Claim Construction, Intervening Rights)

PURDUE PHARMA L.P. v. EPIC PHARMA, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2014-1294, etc. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2016).  Before Prost, Reyna and Stark (D. Del., by designation).  Appealed from S.D.N.Y. (Judge Stein).  (Anticipation; Obviousness; Problem Source Discovery)

U.S. WATER SERVICES, INC. v. NOVOZYMES A/S, Appeal Nos. 2015-1950, 1967 (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2016).  Before Wallach, Hughes, and Stoll.  Appealed from W.D. Wis. (Judge Peterson).  (Invalidity; Inequitable Conduct)

ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS v. VERINATA HEALTH, INC., Appeal Nos. 2015-1215 and 2015-1226 (Fed. Cir. November 16, 2015).  Before Prost, Wallach and Taranto.  Appealed from Patent Trials and Appeals Board.  (Inter Partes Review; Obviousness)

CUBIST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC., Appeal Nos. 2015-1197, -1204, -1259 (Fed. Cir. November 12, 2015).  Before Wallach, Bryson, and Hughes.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Sleet).  (Invalidity and Infringement)

TESCO v. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, Appeal No. 2015-1041 (Fed. Cir. October 30, 2015).  Before Newman, O’Malley, and Chen.  Appealed from S.D. Tex. (Judge Ellison).  (Sanctions; Jurisdiction)

CIRCUIT CHECK INC. v. QXQ INC., Appeal No. 2015-1155. (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2015).  Before Lourie, Dyk and Moore.  Appealed from E.D. Wis. (Judge Griesbach).  (Obviousness; Non-Analogous Art)

SHIRE DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1409 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015).  Before Prost, Chen, and Hughes.  Appealed from S.D. Fla. (Judge Middlebrooks).  (Standard of Review, Claim Construction)

WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1576, -1577 (Fed. Cir. March 2, 2015).  Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna.  Appealed from S.D. Cal. (Judge Bencivengo)  (Infringement; Damages)

BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC. v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appeal No. 2014-1114 (Fed. Cir.  January 13, 2015).  Before Prost, Hughes and Newman.  Appealed  from D. Ariz. (Judge Murguia).  (Standing; Willfulness)

AQUA SHIELD v. INTER POOL COVER TEAM, Appeal No. 2014-1263 (Fed. Cir. December 22, 2014).  Before Wallach, Taranto and Chen.  Appealed from D. Utah (Judge Stewart).  (Damages; Willfulness)

TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP v. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1324 (Fed. Cir. December 4, 2014).  Before Prost, Reyna, and Hughes.  Appealed from D. Conn. (Judge Bond Arterton).  (Obviousness; 35 U.S.C. § 102(g))

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. v. TWI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appeal No. 2014-1391 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2014). Before O’Malley, Wallach, Hughes. Appealed from D. Md. (Judge Blake). (ObviousnessInherency)

HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. v. PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1472 (Fed. Cir. October 22, 2014).  Before Lourie, O’Malley, Hughes.  Appealed from D. Nev. (Judge Pro).  (Infringement; Extraterritorial Effect)

SSL SERVICES, LLC V. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1419, -1420 (Fed. Cir. October 14, 2014).  Before Lourie, Linn, and O’Malley.  Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap).  (General Verdict Rule; Prevailing Party; Willful Infringement)

VIRNETX, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1489 (Fed. Cir. September 16, 2014).  Before Prost and Chen.  Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Davis).  (Claim Construction, Damages)

EPLUS, INC. v. LAWSON SOFTWARE, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1506, -1587 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2014).  Before Prost, Dyk and O’Malley.  Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge Payne). (InjunctionsCivil Contempt)

GOLDEN BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. APPLE INC., Appeal No. 2013‑1496 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2014).  Before Moore, Mayer, and Chen.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Robinson).  (Disclaimer, Claim Construction)

MRC INNOVATIONS, INC v. HUNTER MFG., LLP, Appeal No. 2013-1433 (Fed. Cir. April 2, 2014).  Before Rader, Prost and Chen.  Appealed from N.D. Ohio (Judge Gaughan). (ObviousnessDesign)

RING & PINION SERVICE, INC. v. ARB CORPORATION, Appeal No. 2013-1238 (Fed Cir. February 19, 2014).  Before Moore, Clevenger and Reyna.  Appealed from W.D. Washington (Judge Martinez).  (Infringement, Claim Vitiation)

LOUGHLIN v. LING, Appeal No. 2011-1432 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2012). Before Rader, Moore and Lourie. Appealed from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”).  (Priority/Interference)