Today, in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an accused infringer’s good faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to induced infringement, reversing the Federal Circuit on that issue (see our June 25, 2013 post on the Federal Circuit’s decision). The Court also
Supreme Court applies “clear error” review to claim construction (Teva v. Sandoz)
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
Supreme Court to review defendant’s invalidity belief as defense to induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco)
Today in Commil v. Cisco the Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari to review the following specific question presented:
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid is a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
We provided a summary of the
Supreme Court rules induced infringement requires a 271(a) direct infringer (Limelight v. Akamai)
Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Limelight v. Akamai, ruling that there is no liability for induced infringement under §271(b) induced infringement “when no one has directly infringed the patent under §271(a) or any other statutory provision,” thus reversing the Federal Circuit’s prior and more permissive standard that simply required that all
Supreme Court adopts “reasonable certainty” indefiniteness standard (Nautilus v. BioSig)
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Nautilus v. BioSig that adopts a “reasonable certainty” standard for determining whether a patent claim is invalid because it is indefinite, and rejected the Federal Circuit’s “amenable to construction” and not “insolubly ambiguous” standard that had made indefiniteness challenges harder to establish. The unanimous Supreme Court
Patent Case: Supreme Court to review appellate standard for reviewing district court claim construction (Teva v. Sandoz)
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
Supreme Court Rules that Burden to Show Infringement in Declaratory Judgment Action for Non-Infringement Remains with Patentee
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Medtronic, Inv. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, unanimously reversing the Federal Circuit’s decision below and resolving two issues that are commonly disputed in the lower courts. First, the Court held that the Federal Circuit had subject-matter jurisdiction over an appeal of an action for a
Recent Supreme Court grant of petition for certiorari may have implications for standard-essential patent disputes (Medtronic v. Boston Scientific)
Back in September 2012, we posted a Patent Alert on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Medtronic v. Boston Scientific. In that case, the court held that in an action where a licensee in good standing seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement (so any counterclaim for infringement would be foreclosed by the existence of the
RANDomness
- Shameless plug alert – this past Friday saw us quoted in media reports about patent litigation:
- The Wall Street Journal‘s article “ITC Clears Microsoft’s Xbox in Patent Case,” which discussed recent goings-on in the Motorola-Microsoft ITC case, featured a quote from David Long. You may recall that this case, which is part
RANDomness – Patent day at the Supreme Court
- Yesterday was quite the day for patent-related issues at the Supreme Court. The Court held oral arguments in Bowman v. Monsanto, where the justices are tasked with deciding whether the patent exhaustion doctrine extends to self-replicating technologies (here, Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready soybeans). For more info on these cases, see these recaps from Patently-O