April 15, 2015

Federal Circuit Decisions For Week Ending April 3, 2015

Apotex Inc., v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Nos. 2014-1282, 2014-1291, March 31, 2015 (precedential)(3-0); U.S.
Patent No’s 5,616,599 and 6,878,703

Key point(s):

  • Tentative approval of an ANDA is generally not a precondition to the existence of a case or controversy concerning patents listed in the Orange Book.

Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 2014-1724, April 1, 2015 (precedential)(2-1); U.S. Patent Nos. 5,745,574, 6,314,409, 6,715,084, 6,826,694, & 7,634,666

Key point(s):

  • Under § 18(b)(2) of the AIA, a covered business method review proceeding does not encompass pending CBMR petitions on which the PTAB has not yet acted.
  • The Federal Circuit does not have jurisdiction under § 18(b)(2) of the AIA to consider an interlocutory appeal from a decision on a motion to stay until the PTAB institutes a CBMR proceeding.

TMI Products, INC., v. Rosen Entertainment Systems, L.P., No. 2014-1553, April 2, 2015 (nonprecedential); U.S. Patent No. 7,597,393

Key point(s):

  • When considering multiple possible claim constructions, a claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claims is preferred over one that does not give meaning to one or more terms.
  • A claim drafter’s intent with respect to the drafting of the original claims alone, without further evidence, does not inform the construction of the issued claims.

Vasudevan Software, INC., v. MicroStrategy, Inc., No. 2014-1094, 2014-1096, April 3, 2015 (precedential)(3-0); U.S. Patent No. 6,877,006, 7,167,864, 7,720,861, & 8,082,268

Key point(s):

  • De novo review of the district court’s claim construction applies even if extrinsic evidence is present but not relied on in the district court’s claim construction.
  • Claim construction agreed upon in the context of different litigation is of little relevance or probative value.

Related Team: