August 5, 2015

Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending July 24, 2015

Addiction and Detoxification Institute LLC v. Carpenter, Case No. 2014-1797 (July 21, 2015) (non-precedential) Patent No. 5,789,411

Key point(s):

  • To satisfy the notice requirement in a complaint for direct infringement, the plaintiff must provide factual allegations that a particular device infringes the patent.
  • To satisfy the notice requirement in a complaint for indirect infringement, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant knew of the patent and that the indirect acts constituted patent infringement.

In re Posco, Case No. 2015-112 (July 22, 2015) (precedential, 3-0)

Key point(s):

  • In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not provide the exclusive means for securing documents from another party for use in a foreign proceeding.

Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 2014-1853 (July 20, 2015) (precedential, 3-0)

Key point(s):

  • Evidence of third-party use of a mark may narrow the scope of protection of an opposer’s mark.
  • Disclaimed terms in a mark should be given weight in the assessment of similarity when considering the mark as a whole.

Amgen, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 2015-1499 (July 21, 2015) (precedential, 2-1)

Key point(s):

  • Because the BPCIA provides remedies for failure to comply with its information exchange provisions, a person does not violate the BPCIA by refusing to disclose information outlined in the BPCIA.

Related Team: