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.  ...

Unsupported Declaration by an Interested Party is Insufficient to Remove § 102(e) Prior Art Reference

EMERACHEM HOLDINGS, LLC, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.: No. 2016-1984; June 15, 2017.  Before Moore, Clevenger, and Chen. Takeaway: An uncorroborated declaration by an interested inventor may not be sufficient to show that a reference is not “by another” for the purposes of removing the reference as prior art …

Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal upon Finding it is Precluded from Reviewing District Court’s Decision to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

PRESTON V. NAGEL: Jun. 1, 2017. Before Dyk, Taranto, and Hughes. Takeaways: The CAFC is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) from reviewing the district court’s decision to remand because the remand was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The CAFC found that while hearing state-law and patent-law …

Federal Circuit Upholds Injunction and Comments Upon the Appropriate Test for Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents in Chemical Cases

MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD:  May 19, 2017. Before Lourie, Moore and Reyna.   Takeaway: CAFC ruled the district court did not err in granting preliminary injunction because the district court correctly determined defendant was unlikely to prove invalidity of one patent-in-suit, even though the district court did err …

The District Court Properly Exercised Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Granted Summary Judgment Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s Execution of a Covenant not to Sue that Appeared to be Unconditional

ARCELORMITTAL V. AK STEEL CORP.:  May 16, 2017. Before Hughes (majority), Wallach (dissent), and Moore.   Takeaway: CAFC affirmed the district court’s ruling that it had the subject matter jurisdiction necessary to deny plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and grant summary judgment of invalidity. CAFC found that a facially unconditional covenant not …

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) …

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.