About: admin

Both Meso and Roche licensed patents from INGEN relating to immunoassays that exploit electrochemiluminescence (“ECL”).  The Roche license included a field restriction that was to be indicated on its packaging. INGEN transferred the patents to BioVeris. Roche purchased BioVeris and, now owning the patents, told customers to ignore the field restriction labels and began selling the products without field restrictions. Roche brought this suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it doesn’t infringe Meso’s rights arising from the INGEN-Meso license agreement, and Meso counterclaimed for patent infringement. The case was tried to a jury who found: 1) that Meso holds an exclusive license to the asserted patent claims;

• Posted on: Apr 8 2022
• By: admin

Littelfuse brought a patent infringement action against Mersen alleging that Mersen infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,564,281 which is directed to a fuse end cap for providing an electrical connection between a fuse and an electrical conductor. After the district court construed the patent claims, the parties stipulated to a judgment of non-infringement. Littelfuse now appeals the district court’s claim constructions. In the course of the litigation, the district court construed the term “fastening stem” to mean a “stem that attaches or joins other components” and the phrase “a fastening stem that extends from the mounting cuff and into the second cavity of the terminal that receives the conductor” to mean “a stem that extends from the mounting cuff and into the second cavity of the terminal that receives the conductor,

• Posted on: Apr 4 2022
• By: admin

Genuine sued Nintendo alleging that five Nintendo products (the Wii Remote; the Nunchuk; the WiiU Game Pad; Switch Joy-Con Controller; and the Nintendo Switch Pro Controller) infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,219,730 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Producing a Combined Data Stream and Recovering Therefrom the Respective User Input Stream and at Least One Additional Input Signal.” The parties submitted claim construction briefing to the District Court in which they disputed the proper construction of the claim term “input signal” in all asserted claims.

• Posted on: Apr 1 2022
• By: admin

Dyfan appeals from the District Court’s final judgment of invalidity of asserted patent claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,973,899 and 10,194,292  (relating to systems for delivering messages to users based on their locations) as indefinite based on its view that certain claim limitations are in means-plus-function format and that the specification does not disclose sufficient structure corresponding to the recited functions. The CAFC notes that the means-plus-function analysis asks two questions: Is the disputed claim limitation drafted in means plus-function format and,

• Posted on: Mar 24 2022
• By: admin

Hunting Titan petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1–15 of DynaEnergetics’ U.S. Patent No. 9,581,422 which is directed to a perforating gun used in an oil wellbore having a wireless and selective detonator assembly for detonating an explosive projectile charge within the perforating gun without the need to attach wires to the detonator. The Board instituted trial on all 16 asserted grounds of unpatentability grounds and ultimately agreed with Hunting Titan, finding all of the original claims unpatentable.

• Posted on: Mar 24 2022
• By: admin

Judges Lourie, Moore, and Newman dissent from the denial of Biogen’s petition for rehearing en banc because in their view the panel majority has affirmed a district court’s erroneous broadening of the written description inquiry that imports extraneous considerations into the written description analysis and blurs the boundaries between the written description requirement and the other statutory requirements for patentability. The district court found and the CAFC previously affirmed that Mylan met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the specification of Biogen’s U.S.

• Posted on: Mar 16 2022
• By: admin

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), a research arm of the Australian government, owns six U.S. patents relating to the engineering of plants, particularly canola, to produce specified oils not native to the plants. In 2017, BASF sued CSIRO seeking a declaratory judgment and CSIRO filed counterclaims asserting infringement and adding Cargill as a counterclaim defendant. BASF asserted, as an infringement defense, that it co-owned the asserted patents by virtue of a 2008 contract between it and CSIRO. Cargill’s objections for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue were denied.

• Posted on: Mar 15 2022
• By: admin

U.S. Patent 9,517,219 relates to methods of treating acne or rosacea with dapsone formulations that include a specific thickening agent and solvent, and recites the negative limitation “wherein the topical pharmaceutical composition does not comprise adapalene.” Amneal filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’219 patent, arguing that claims 1–8 would have been obvious. The Board ultimately concluded that Amneal demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1– 8 of the ’219 patent are unpatentable and Almirall appealed.

• Posted on: Mar 14 2022
• By: admin

 Cirrus Design Corp. petitioned for inter partes review of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. RE47,474 relating to aircraft including an intelligent ballistic parachute systems.  Fleming appeals the Board’s final written decision determining that the claims are unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Cirrus Design’s Pilot Operation Handbook (“POH”) and other prior art. Fleming argues it was error for the Board to rely on common sense to supply a missing claim limitation, but the CAFC has continued to approach the obviousness inquiry with the flexibility required by KSR and finds that the Board’s conclusion is the result of a faithful application of the law on obviousness,

• Posted on: Mar 10 2022
• By: admin