Federal Circuit Affirms Decision That Attorney’s Fees Should Not Be Awarded for “Bad Lawyering” or as a Punishment for Failing To Win

Authored by Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Andrew Wahba Digest of GAYMAR INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CINCINNATI SUB-ZERO PRODUCTS, No. 2014-1174 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from W.D.N.Y. Before Prost, Bryson, and Dyk. Procedural Posture: Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. CAFC affirmed in part, …

Federal Circuit Affirms Decision that Patent Term Adjustments for Continuing Applications Under 35 U.S.C. § 154 Cannot be Based on Delays During a Parent Patent Application’s Term

Authored by Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Andrew Wahba Digest of MOHSENZADEH V. LEE, No. 2014-1499 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from E.D. Va. Before Moore, Schall, and Reyna. Procedural Posture: Plaintiff patentee appealed from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the government for a patent term …

Federal Circuit Affirms Decision Denying Attorney’s Fees Under The New Octane Standard

Authored by Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Andrew Wahba Digest LEE v. MIKE’S NOVELTIES, INC., No. 2014-1453 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2015) (non-precedential). On appeal from C.D. Cal. Before Dyk, Moore, and Wallach. Per Curiam. Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appealed a decision denying its request for attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. The …

Federal Circuit Validates Lighting Ballast Patent Based on Expert Testimony Supporting That the Claim Language Presented Defined Structures to Those of Ordinary Skill In The Art

Authored by Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Andrew Wahba Digest of LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL V. PHILIPS ELECS. N. AM. CORP, No. 2014-1014 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from N.D. Tex. Rader, O’Malley, and Reyna. Procedural Posture: Returning on remand from SCOTUS for reconsideration in light of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. …

Federal Circuit Affirms Decision That Retaining Data in Online Forms Is Patent Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Because It Is Abstract and There Is No “Inventive Concept”

Authored by Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Andrew Wahba Digest of INTERNET PATENTS CORPORATION V. ACTIVE NETWORK, INC., Nos. 2014-1048, 2014-1061, 2014-1062, 2014-1063 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from the N.D. Cal. Before Newman, Moore, and Reyna. Procedural Posture: Plaintiff patentee appealed from a judgment dismissing complaints in four related actions …