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 …

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 …

When the Examiner Agrees With an Attorney’s Argument Presented in an Inter Partes Reexamination, But Cites to No Substantial Evidence, There is no Factual Basis for the Examiner’s Finding That Patent Claims are Unpatentable as Being

Icon Health v. Strava, (2016-1475) February 27, 2017.  Before Judges O’Malley (concurring-in part and dissenting-in-part), Reyna, and Wallach. Takeaway: In order to withstand a challenge on appeal, a determination by the PTAB that the claims of a patent would have been obvious must be supported by substantial evidence, and be …

Patent Claiming Antidote for Acetaminophen Overdoses Not Invalid as Either Derived From Another or Obvious Over the Prior Art

CUMBERLAND PHARMS. INC. v. MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC:  Jan. 26, 2017.   Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto. Takeaway: To prove that a claimed invention was derived from another, a defendant must show that the specific invention was previously conceived by someone else and then communicated to the named inventor. There is no …