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.  ...

Shoulder Replacement Apparatus Not Anticipated by Prior Art Requiring Modification to Satisfy Claim Language

IN RE: CHUDIK: March 27, 2017. Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stoll. Takeaway: A prior art reference that must be distorted from its obvious design does not anticipate claims. Procedural Posture: In an appeal from the USPTO where the PTAB affirmed the examiner’s rejection of Chudik’s claims as anticipated by two …

Octane Fitness Does Not Provide a Set Formula For Determining Whether to Grant Attorney Fees.

UNIV. OF UTAH v. MAX-PLANCK-GESELLSCHAFT: March 23, 2017. Before O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach. Takeaway: Octane Fitness does not provide a precise framework for a finding that a case is exceptional and warrants an award of fees, only several suggestions that might guide a district court’s discretionary decision. In ruling on a …

Potential Error in Jury Verdict with Respect to Non-Infringement Is Harmless Where Invalidity Is Affirmed

TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC.: March 21, 2017. Before Prost, Clevenger, Reyna. Takeaway: A party cannot argue on appeal that claim terms have “more than one ordinary meaning” if the argument was not raised in the first instance at trial. Potential error by a jury regarding non-infringement is harmless where …

The CAFC Vacated the Northern District of California’s Claim Construction Because the District Court Improperly Limited the Claims Based on Prosecution History Disclaimer

Tech Properties v. Huawei (2016-1306), March 3, 2017.  Before Judges Moore, Wallach, and Chen. Takeaway: A district court may only limit claims based on prosecution disclaimer to the extent that the patentee makes clear and unmistakable disclaimers. If a district court limits the claims of a patent more narrowly than …

A Prior Art Reference That Merely Suggests the Claimed Subject Matter Does Not Anticipate the Claims

Eli Lilly v. Los Angeles Biomedical (2016-1547), February 28, 2017.  Before Judges Newman, Bryson, and Moore. Takeaway: In order to anticipate claims directed toward a daily treatment regime, a reference must do more than merely suggest the claimed subject matter. Procedural Posture: Los Angeles Biomedical filed a patent infringement suit …

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.