Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending May 12, 2017
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC, Case Nos. 2016-1143, 2016-1144 (May 10, 2017) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,415,082
- A written description analysis requires a claim to be properly construed and then to besupported in a manner whereby persons of ordinary skill in the art can recognize theinvention as claimed from the specification.
NOVA Chemicals Corporation, Nova Chemicals, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Company, Case No. 2016-1576 (May 11, 2017) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 5,847,053, 6,111,023
- A district court may determine a case is exceptional due to a determination, consideringthe totality of the circumstances, that the strength of a litigant’s position is objectively baseless.
Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2016-1599 (May 11, 2017) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent No. RE 44,412
- Statements made by a patent owner during an IPR can be used to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer.
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc., Nos. 2016-1739, 2016-1740, 2016-1741 (May 8, 2017) (non-precedential) U.S. Patent Nos. 7,848,353 and 8,396,079
- The Board may not change theories midstream without giving the parties reasonable notice of its change and an opportunity to be heard, but the burden is upon an aggrieved party to seek redress.
Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., No. 2016-1750 (May 9, 2017) (non-precedential) U.S. Patent No. 6,945,013
- Although words in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, a patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer by defining terms in the specification.
E2Interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc., Case No. 2016-1775 (May 11, 2017) (Non-Precedential) Patent No. 7,578,439
- The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term is not limited to examples given in the specification when no clear explicit definition of the claim term is given.
In Re AT&T Intellectual Property II, Nos. 2016-1830 (May 10, 2017) (Precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent No. 7,454,071
- The PTAB is not obligated to deny inter partes reexamination even if the requester is the party seeking to have the reexamination denied.
Atlas IP, LLC v. Commonwealth Edison Co., Case No. 2016-2203 (May 9, 2017) (Non-precedential) Patent No. 5,371,734
- An award of attorneys’ fees and costs must be appealed separately and will not typically be considered along with the appeal of another judgement under the doctrine of pendant jurisdiction.