Topic Archives: Federal Circuit

Are Human Genes Patentable? A Preview of Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (“The Myriad Case”)

On April 15, 2013, the Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments for one of the most highly anticipated patent law cases of last year: Association for Molecular Pathology, Inc, et al. v. USPTO, et al. The one and only question before … Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The Uncertain Future of Divided Patent Infringement

The law of patent infringement is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 271. In particular, § 271(a) describes what constitutes infringement: Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the … Continue reading

Tagged , , Leave a comment

Centocor v. Abbott Labs: Enforcing the Written Description Requirement in the Unpredictable Arts

In the recent Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories (PDF), the Federal Circuit found that Defendant Abbott was not liable for patent infringement, on the basis of written description insufficiency. The Federal Circuit emphasized the patent statute’s requirement that … Continue reading

Tagged , , Leave a comment

Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International: New Aspects to Divided Infringement

In Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International (PDF), the Federal Circuit limited its doctrine that for patent infringement, “every element” of a claim needs to be infringed by a single party. Legal Background: Patent claims describe the scope … Continue reading

Tagged , , Leave a comment

Uniloc v. Microsoft: Reducing the Potential to Recover Reasonable Royalty Rate Damages

In the recent Uniloc v. Microsoft (PDF), the Federal Circuit made two significant changes to the standards by which a patentee can recover damages from an infringer. First, the court abolished the “25% Rule of Thumb” which had previously been … Continue reading

Tagged , , 1 Comment

Tokai v. Easton: Deference to the PTO and Hindsight Bias in Obviousness Analysis

The recent Tokai v. Easton opinion (PDF) raises a timely standard of review issue that the Supreme Court will soon consider in Microsoft v. i4i, and highlights the danger of hindsight bias in an obviousness analysis. The timely issue here regards … Continue reading

Tagged , , Leave a comment

iLOR v. Google: A Two-Part Test for Identifying Vexatious or Unjustified Litigation

Summary Collectively,  Brooks Furniture and iLOR v. Google (PDF) establish the standards a defendant must meet for an award of attorney fees from vexatious and unjustified litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 285.  Brooks Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dutailier International, Inc., … Continue reading

Tagged , Leave a comment

Winter 2010 News Briefs

This month, our team members have been consumed with outlines, papers, and finals, and now the holidays are upon us.  Although we won’t be able to write full posts on all of the recent developments in technology law, we wanted … Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Finjan v. Secure Computing: Direct Infringement of Apparatus Claims by Software That Requires User Unlocking or Activation

In the recent Finjan v. Secure Computing decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that software that is sold in locked or inactivated form can directly infringe apparatus claims even before the customer unlocks or activates the software in separate subsequent steps. … Continue reading

Tagged , , , Leave a comment

First Invented in a Foreign Country and Later “Invented” Again “in this Country:” Solvay v. Honeywell on 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2)

In the recent Solvay v. Honeywell (PDF) decision, the Federal Circuit dealt with the issue of who qualifies as a prior inventor for the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2).  In particular, this case concerns an invention that was invented … Continue reading

Tagged , , Leave a comment