A patent must be “definite”: it must particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. Otherwise, the patent is not valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282 ¶ 2(3). On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments unanimously decided the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim […]
The Patent Act provides, in 35 U.S.C. § 285, that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” In 2005, and the Federal Circuit restrictively interpreted the statute in Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., holding that a case is “exceptional” only where (1) “there has been […]
On February 21, 2014, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, issued its opinion in the closely-watched case Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., ___ F.3d ___, Case No. 2012-1014 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 21, 2014). In a 6-4 decision, the court declined to overrule or modify the de novo standard of review […]
When a patent owner sues another for infringement, the patent owner must prove infringement. The Supreme Court ruled on January 22, 2014, in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, that this burden of proof still applies when a patent licensee sues the patent owner for a declaratory judgment that certain products do not infringe […]
The Federal Circuit has ruled that Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.’s financial and internal market research information may remain protected and need not be disclosed to the public. As we have noted separately, U.S. District Court Judge Koh had denied both parties’ motions to seal financial and other commercial information that the parties considered […]
