August 14, 2018

Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending July 6, 2018

In re Marquez, Case No. 2017-2038, (July 2, 2018), (Nonprecedential), Patent Application No. 12/726,158

Key point(s):

  • Where there are two or more examiner rejections, a broad assertion of error, and arguments in response to less than all the rejections on appeal to the Board, will not preserve the right to challenge a rejection to which no specific argument is presented

Equistar Chemicals, LP, v. Westlake Chemical Corporation, Case No. 17-1548, (July 3, 2018) (Non Precedential), Patent No. 7, 064,163

Key point(s):

  • To obtain relief from a final judgment under rule 60(b) based upon documents the moving party must at minimum show the documentary evidence is new.
  • Prior art disclosing a claimed result, in a different but related chemical reaction, is not per se applicable to render a claim obvious.
  • Stockpiling a material manufactured using a later-patented process, before the critical date, is not of itself sufficient to implicate the on sale bar.

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu, Case No. 17-1362, (July 3, 2018) (Non Precedential), Patent Nos. 8,267,320, 8,323,600 and 8,313,353

Key point(s):

  • Where the patentee is the market share leader for a type of product, and maintains that market share lead upon release of a new, higher priced product practicing the claims of a patent, that is strong evidence of commercial success.

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Intl., Case No. 16-2691,(July 3, 2018) (Precedential) (3-0)(Patent Nos. 6,212,079, 6,538,908)

Key point(s):

  • A claim element should not be construed to render the claimed device inoperable.
  • If the accused infringer shows that the accused device had other valuable features that drive consumer demand, and the patentee agrees, the entire value rule does not apply.

Spineology v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Case No. 2388, (July 6, 2018) (Non precedential) Patent No. Re42,757

Key point(s):

  • Where non-infringement of claims is affirmed based on an affirmed construction of one claim term, the determination of indefiniteness of the same claims for failure to disclose structure under § 112(f) is vacated with instructions to enter judgment of non-infringement of the claims

Related Team:

Donald Verplancken