March 29, 2024

Federal Circuit Summary for Week Ending March 29, 2024

Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., No. 2022-1877 (March 25, 2024) (precedential) (2-1)

Key point:

  • Section 271(e)(1)’s safe harbor applies when undisputed evidence shows importation was reasonably related to recruiting investigators for a clinical trial to support FDA approval.

Brumfield v. IBG, LLC, No. 2022-1630 (March 27, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 6,766,304; 6,772,132; 7,676,411; 7,813,996

Key point:

  • WesternGeco’s extraterritoriality framework for damages under §284 applies to infringement under §271(a), as well as under §271(f)(2), and applies to both lost-profit and reasonable royalty damages.

Inline Plastics Corp. v. Lacerta Group, LLC, No. 2022=-1954, 2022-2295 (March 27, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 7,118,003; 7,073,680; 9,630,756; 8,795,580; 9,527,640

Key point(s):

  • Incorrect guidance given to a jury regarding the secondary considerations of nonobviousness, also known as objective indicia, can constitute error.
  • Objective indicia considerations include factors like commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, and the failure of others, which can provide evidence against a claim of obviousness in patent law.

Virtek Vision International ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc., No. 2022-1998_(March 27, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 10,052,734

Key point:

  • Motivation to combine is not met merely by recognizing two alternative arrangements were both known in the prior art.

Rady v. Boston Consulting Group, Inc., No. _2022-2218_(March 27, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 10,469,250

Key point(s):

  • Claims are not saved from Alice abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer.
  • Utility is not the measure of patent eligibility.

Biomedical Device Consultants, LLC v. ViVitro Labs, Inc., No. 2023-2393 (March 28, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 9,237,935

Key point:

  • Denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed where district court did not abuse its discretion in finding substantial question concerning validity.

Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC, No. 2022-2215 (March 29, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 9,405,753; 9,547,650; 9,779,095

Key point:

  • Affirmance of an unpatentability determination as directed to an abstract idea and lacking an inventive concept moots dissatisfaction about a transferee venue.

Related Team:

Jerry R. Selinger

Partner

Randol Read

Partner