January 28, 2015

Federal Circuit Court and Supreme Court Decisions for the Week Ending January 23, 2015

Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., U. S. Supreme Court, January 20, 2015 (7-2)

Key point(s):

  • When the district court consults extrinsic evidence for any term in dispute to, e.g., understand the background science or the meaning of the term, and makes factual findings, the Federal Circuit is to review the resulting factual findings under the clear error standard of Rule 52.

Hana Fin. Inc. v. Hana Bank, U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2015 (9-0)

Key point(s):

  • When a jury trial has been requested and when the facts do not warrant entry of summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), the jury determines whether the use of an older trademark may be tacked to a newer one for purpose of determining priority.

In re Orbital Tech. Corp., No. 2014-1298, -1299, January 20, 2015 (nonprecedential), Reexamination Nos. 90/011,864 (Patent No. 7,220,018), and 90/011,865 (Patent No. 7,473,008)

Key point(s):

  • Poor-quality machine translations of prior art references may, in some cases, be inadequate to support an obviousness rejection. In determining whether a low-quality machine translation is sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of obviousness, the court may consider the complexity of the technology.

XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., No. 2014-1281, January 2, 2015 (nonprecedential), Patent Nos. 7,366,709 and 7,499,903

Key point(s):

  • Damages allegedly flowing from a fraudulent concealment claim must be supported by credible evidence.

Related Team: