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 …

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 …

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 …

District Court Correctly Analyzed Likelihood of Success and Irreparable Harm Elements When Granting Preliminary Injunction

TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC V. TELLEBRANDS CORP.: Jan. 24, 2017.  Before Moore, Wallach, and Stoll. Takeaway: Instruction manuals that teach a claim element can be used as circumstantial evidence of a customer’s direct infringement. Claim terms are not indefinite when the claims themselves provide parameters for determining whether the disputed limitation …