About
CAFC Blog (www.cafcblog.com), an Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP resource, keeps practitioners up-to-date on the most recent IP decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. About Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP For more than...
Authors
The contributors to this blog are Andrews Kurth Kenyon Intellectual Property attorneys from throughout the country. Their backgrounds and areas of concentration allow them to provide comprehensive analyses of recent Federal Circuit Court opinions.  ...

Federal Circuit Reaffirms the Board’s Decision to Terminate a Reexamination As to Only Litigated Claims in a Civil Action

IN RE AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC: May 5, 2017. Before Taranto, Chen, Stoll. Takeaway: The estoppel provision under 35 U.S.C. 317(b) does not extend to all parties and all claims, but rather only to an inter partes requester that was a party to the civil action (or its privies) …

Federal Circuit Clarifies the Scope of On-Sale Bar and Holds that the Absence of Regulatory Approval Before the Critical Date does Not Prevent a Sale and the Completion of Phase III studies and Final FDA Approval are Not Pre-Requisites for the Invention to be Ready for Patenting

HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A., v. TEVA PHARMS. USA, INC.: May 1, 2017. Before Dyk, Mayer, O’Malley. Takeaway: An agreement contracting the claimed invention for sale contingent on regulatory approval is still a commercial sale, and thus the absence of FDA or other regulatory approval before the critical date does not prevent …

Lack of Meaningful Competition Between the Parties Weighed Against Conclusion of Irreparable Harm, Leading to Denial of Permanent Injunction

Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, INC., No. 2016-1585, 2016-1618 (Fed. Cir. April 28, 2017) (precedential).  On appeal from E.D. Tex.  Before Reyna, Hughes and Stoll. Takeaway: Lack of meaningful competition between the parties weighs against conclusion of irreparable harm. Procedural Posture: Nichia, the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,530,250, 7,432,589, …

Claims Directed to Encoding and Decoding Image Data Held Patent-Ineligible

RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., No. 2016-1499 (Fed. Cir. April 28, 2017) (precedential).  On appeal from W. D. Wash. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Stoll. Takeaway: Adding one abstract idea (mathematical equation) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract. A claim directed to an abstract …

CAFC Concludes that the District Court Correctly Denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Properly Upheld the Jury’s Verdict of Noninfringement Where the Jury Did Not Err in Finding that Defendant’s Devices Did Not Infringe the Claims in Plaintiff’s Patent

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L, v. APPLE INC.: April 14, 2017.  Before O’Malley, Bryson, and Wallach. (precedential). Takeaway: CAFC affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s JMOL motion upholding the non-infringement verdict where substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the accused devices did not use a mobile station to select which …

Disclaimer

Unless otherwise indicated, lawyers listed on this blog are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. A past performance or prior result is no guarantee of a similar future result in another case or matter. Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP is responsible for the content of this blog and monitors comments. Andrews Kurth, the Andrews Kurth logo, Straight Talk is Good Business and Intelligent Energy are registered service marks of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP. Andrews Kurth Kenyon and the Andrews Kurth Kenyon logo are service marks of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP. Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP is a Texas limited liability partnership. Andrews Kurth Kenyon (UK) LLP is authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales (SRA Registration No.598542). Andrews Kurth (Middle East) DMCC is registered and licensed as a Free Zone company under the rules and regulations of DMCCA. Attorney Advertising. Neither the content on this website and/or blog nor any transmissions between you and Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP through this website and/or blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. In communicating with us through this website and/or blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter that you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers. By commenting on this website and/or blog (and thereby choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval), you understand and agree that Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.