A Patent Applicant’s Actions Need Not Cause Actual Delay to Cause a Reduction in the Length of a Patent Term Adjustment

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee

The Federal Circuit affirmed the court’s holding that the PTO’s decision to reduce the Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”) amount of time by 57 days under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(C) due to the patent applicant’s... Read More >>

Claims are Not Construed in the Abstract, but in the Context of the Patent Documents; Claim Construction Affirmed

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership.

The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement, and, in so doing, affirmed the construction of the claim term “personal identification number” as “a number separate from a billing code, identifying an individual system user, which is associated with the individual and not the device.” Read More >>

Clear and Unmistakable Disclaimer of Scope in the Specification Limited Claim Construction

Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc.

Affirming the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement, the agreed with the district court that the preamble of the claim-at-issue was a limitation which required a system that provided a “sensible output for setting the pace or rate of movement of a user in
performing a repetitive motion activity” and that the term “playback device” required a device “capable of playing audio, video, or visible signal.” Read More >>

Collateral Estoppel Precluded Second Lawsuit Where Patent Claims Were Held Invalid in a Prior Lawsuit and the Patent Owner Had the Incentive to Fully Litigate the Validity Issues

Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC

The Federal Circuit held that collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) precluded Soverain’s lawsuit against Victoria’s Secret. Read More >>

Jury’s General Verdict of Non-Infringement Was Not Entitled to Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Subsequent Action

United Access Technologies, LLC v. Centurytel Broadband Services LLC

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s holding that a jury’s general verdict of non-infringement had collateral estoppel effect in a later action. Read More >>

Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Vacated Where the District Court’s Claim Constructions Were Incorrect

Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Fujifilm Corp.

The court rejected five claim constructions determined by the district court, vacated the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement, and remanded to the district court for further.  The claims at issue involved interface devices for communication between a host device and a data transmit/receive device. Read More >>

The Doctrine of Exhaustion Applies Only Where There are Allegations of Direct Infringement Against the Licensed Party or a Subsequent Owner/Possessor of the Licensed Product

Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. The New York Times Co.

The Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of patent exhaustion.  The patents-in-suit involved “systems and methods for handling information and providing it to wireless devices, such as mobile phone handsets,” referred to as the “content claims,” which are distinguished from the “handset claims,” which were not at issue in this case. Read More >>