Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending January 12, 2018
Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., Case No. 2015-1944 (Jan. 8, 2018) (precedential) (En Banc; 9-4) Patent Nos. 6,772,215; 6,466,568; and 6,424,625
- PTAB decisions determining whether an IPR was timely filed are subject to review by appeal.
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 2016-2520 (Jan. 10, 2018) (precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 7,418,731; 6,965,968; 7,647,633
- Apportionment of damages is required where an infringing product is a multi-component product with patented and unpatented components.
Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corporation, Case Nos. 2016-2309, 2016-2310, 2016-2311 (Jan. 11, 2018) (precedential) (2-1) Patent No. 5,781,788
- Co-owners of a patent must be joined to have standing in a patent infringement lawsuit.
Honeywell International Inc. v. Fujifilm Corporation, Case Nos. 2017-1070, 2017-1073 (Jan. 11, 2018) (non-precedential) Patent No. 5,280,371
- To receive an award of attorney’s fees, the party seeking fees must prove that the case is an exceptional case by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Losing a summary judgment motion does not automatically result in an award of attorneys’ fees.
Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, Case No. 2016-2197 (Jan. 12, 2018) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 5,987,863
- A reexamination confirming patentability of a patent claim alone is not determinative of whether a genuine issue of fact precludes summary judgment of no invalidity.
- An opinion of a damages expert must be tied to the facts of the case.
- The fact that some prior art has not been commercialized does not make that art immaterial to determining the extent to which the invention provides utility and advantages over the prior art.