Today, the Federal Circuit issued a decision en banc that reversed a three-judge panel decision because it erroneously had relied on evidence outside of the record from the trial court below to change the claim construction and hold claims invalid on obviousness grounds.  This decision may lead to more deference to the district court and increase the likelihood that a district court’s decision on claim construction, infringement or validity will survive appellate review.   But the decision’s ambiguous procedural posture may lead to confusion and litigants debating what portions of the decision are cloaked with the binding deference due an en banc decision of the court.
Continue Reading

Yesterday, we reported on the manager’s amendments to the Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act, or “PATENT Act,” a bi-partisan patent reform bill introduced by Senator Leahy and several other Senators.  After two additional amendments by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during yesterday’s mark-up session, the committee approved the bill by a vote of 

On Tuesday, a proposed Manager’s Amendment was released for the Senate’s pending PATENT Act bill.  Following is a recap of the recent wave of patent legislation proposals this year.

Innovation Act.  Since 2013, the House and the Senate have considered various forms of patent reform legislation that attempt to address perceived patent litigation abuse. 

Earlier this week, in Teva v. Sandoz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “factual underpinnings” of a district court’s claim construction decision must be reviewed by the Federal Circuit under the “clear error” standard of review (see our Mar. 31, 2014 post for the question presented).  Many thanks to Clifford A. Katz and

Today, in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s de novo standard of review of a district court’s claim construction ruling.  Teva phrased the question presented as follows:

QUESTION PRESENTED
Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in matters

Today, in an  en banc decision in  Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics, No. 2012-1014, a divided Federal Circuit maintained the Cybor de novo appellate review of claim construction standard — i.e., no required deference to  the district court’s decision — because there was insufficient reasons to depart from it under stare decisis

On March 15, 2013, in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., No. 2012-1014, the Federal Circuit granted Lighting Ballast’s petition for rehearing en banc to decide the following questions: (1) whether the court should overrule Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en

Today, Tue., April 3, 2012, in Advanced Fiber v. J&L, No. 2011-1243, the Federal Circuit (Lourie, Dyk (dissenting) and Prost) applied general claim construction principles to construe the term “perforated” that was not itself a claim term, but was part of the district court’s construction of the claim terms “screening medium.”  The Court also affirmed the summary judgment ruling of no willfulness because the invalidity and noninfringement defenses were “objectively reasonable” notwithstanding reversal on claim construction.
Continue Reading