Panel: Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Hughes, with Judge Dyk writing the opinion
You should read this case if: you have a motion to reopen a judgment under Rule 60(b)(3)
This week we take a look at a rare feat: a successful motion to set aside a judgment (and injunction) under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b)(3) provides for relief from a judgment for reason of “fraud … , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.”
So how did the motion here clear Rule 60(b)(3)’s high bar? Basically, it took the patent owner’s president (who was also serving as an expert) denying knowledge of prior art in a deposition, and then admitting after judgment that his deposition statements were “literally incorrect” when it was revealed that he had knowledge of undisclosed prior art “functionally identical in design to the claims” of the patent. And the district court found the president’s explanations for his false deposition testimony “w
Is It Hindsight Or Was It Already There? - Intellectual Property mondaq.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from mondaq.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Panel: Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Moore, with Judge Moore writing the opinion
You should read this case if: you have a claim term with functional language that may be subject to means-plus-function interpretation
Everyone knows patents must end with claims that “particularly point out and distinctly” identify the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). But some inventions don’t lend themselves to succinct delineation in the claims. So Congress provided an alternative rather than identify in the claims an exact structure or step that is an element of the invention, patentees can express the element as “a means or step for performing a specified function.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). When they do, the claim will be “construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On January 28, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the general principle that the mere fact of copying by an accused infringer is insufficient to rebut a charge of obviousness (
The appeal related to a post-grant review (PGR) challenge brought by L’Oreal against U.S. Patent No. 9,668,954, relating to methods for bleaching hair using maleic acid. We previously reported the Federal Circuit’s decision on appeal of the PGR of a parent patent (
Liqwd, Inc., v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., appeal from PGR2017-00012) here. In
Liqwd, the Federal Circuit concluded that L’Oreal, the accused infringer, would not have developed products using maleic acid without having had access to the confidential information of Liqwd, Inc., the patent owner. Because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in
Panel: Judges Dyk, Plager, and Moore, with Judge Dyk writing the opinion
You should read this case if: you have a matter involving standard-essential patents and license agreements that include later-developed or acquired intellectual property.
Our case this week features the standard-essential power players of quarantine: cell phones and tablets. If you’re wondering how your trusted devices fared, please do read on.
Evolved owns a standard-essential patent (SEP) covering 4G/LTE technology for mobile devices. In 2015, Evolved sued several mobile device manufacturers for infringement based on their use of Qualcomm chipsets to make multi-mode, or LTE, mobile devices.
But here’s the catch. The patent’s original owner, LGE, had granted a license to Qualcomm back in 1993. This license agreement barred patent infringement claims against Qualcomm and its customers for use of LGE patents that are technically or commercially necessary to make, sell, or use a “Sub