CAFC affirms examiner’s determination of patentability, and Board’s decision finding a newly amended claim to be unpatentable

  Case: Shimano, Inc. v. Rea, No. 2012-1286 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2013) (non-precedential). On appeal from USPTO. Before Newman, Dyk, and Bryson. Procedural Posture: Requester in an inter partes reexamination appealed from USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision affirming the examiner’s determination of patentability. Patent holder cross-appealed the …

CAFC affirms denials of JMOL and for a new trial after jury verdict of invalidity

  Case: Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc.,No. 2012-1614 (Fed Cir. Apr. 26, 2013) (non-precedential). On appeal from E.D. Tex. Before Rader, Schall and Prost. Procedural Posture: The patentee appealed denials of JMOL and for a new trial after jury returned a verdict of invalidity. The Federal Circuit affirmed the …

Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.

Authored by Michael Kelly and David J. Kaplan Case: Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., No. 2012-1289 (Fed Cir. Apr. 26, 2013) (precedential). On appeal from S.D.N.Y. Before Newman, Schall and Wallach. Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appealed district court’s post claim construction summary judgment ruling of invalidity for indefiniteness. The Federal Circuit reversed. Indefiniteness: …

In re Broadcom Corp.

Authored by Michael Kelly and David J. Kaplan Case: In re Broadcom Corp., No. 2013-M141 (Fed Cir. Apr. 23, 2013) (non-precedential). On appeal from E.D. Tex. Before Prost, Moore and O’Malley. Procedural Posture: Defendants petitioned for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to dismiss the case, or transfer it to a different …

Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC

Authored by Michael Kelly and Anne E. Li Case: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC, No. 2012-1318 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2013) (precedential). On appeal from S.D. Fla. Before Newman, Prost, and Reyna. Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appealed a finding that collateral estoppel barred it from asserting patent infringement. CAFC affirmed. …