July 13, 2015

Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending July 3, 2015

The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc. Case Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504 (July 2, 2015) (precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 and 7,598,343.

Key point(s):

  • A claimed invention is the subject of a commercial offer for sale if one is paid to perform services that result in the patented product-by-process.

Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. v. USPTO Case No. 2014-1280 (July 2, 2015) (precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent Nos. 7,342,014 and 7,365,205.

Key point(s):

  • Under the APA, the PTO did not abuse its discretion or act in an arbitrary and capricious manner by instituting a 180 day limitation for patentees to file a petition for administrative review of the PTO’s determination of patent term adjustment since the statute provided the PTO with authority to establish regulations for patent term adjustment and all similarly situated patentees were treated the same.

Speedtrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc. Case No. 2014-1475 (June 30, 2015) (precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent No. 5,544,360.

Key point(s):

  • Customers can assert the Kessler doctrine as a defense against a patent claim that previously has been held to be invalid or not infringed.

Cambrian Science Corporation v. Cox Communications, Inc. Case No. 2014-1686 (June 29, 2015) (non-precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent No. 6,775,312.

Key point(s):

  • Summary judgement is proper where there is no literal infringement and no evidence of a genuine material fact issue regarding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

Buckhorn Inc. v. Orbis Corporation Case No. 2014-1711 (July 2, 2015) (non-precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent No. 5,199,592.

Key point(s):

  • According to regional circuit law, a party must be privy or an intended third party beneficiary to be held liable under a contract.

Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corporation Case Nos. 2013-1527, 2014-1121, 2014-1526, 2014-1528 (July 2, 2015) (precedential) (2-1) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,691,038, 7,080,607, 7,162,967, and 7,293,520.

Key point(s):

  • Damages cannot be awarded for lost profits from a loss of foreign sales or services to be performed abroad, which resulted from infringing conduct under § 271(f) in the United States.

Related Team:

Jessie D. Herrera, Jr.