Month: March 2025
-
Wash World v. Belanger: Federal Circuit Vacates Convoyed-Sales Damages
The Federal Circuit issued a split ruling in Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., affirming the district court’s judgment of infringement but vacating the lost profits damages award due to improper inclusion of convoyed sales. The case presents key takeaways on claim construction waiver, convoyed sales damages, and preserving post-trial remedies, with important implications for…
-
In re Riggs: Clarification of 102(e) Prior Art:
In its opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in In re Riggs, No. 22-1945, clarifying the framework for determining whether a published U.S. patent application can rely on the filing date of a provisional application to qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).…
-
Maquet v. Abiomed: Scope of Prosecution Disclaimer
On March 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court judgment of non-infringement and remanded the case for further proceedings in Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. (No. 23-2045). The opinion focuses on the claim construction of U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783 (the “’783 patent”), specifically the proper application of the prosecution disclaimer doctrine and…
-
Actavis v. United States: When Patent Litigation Meets Tax Law
In a significant March 2025 opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ decision in Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. United States, addressing a complex intersection of patent litigation, FDA regulatory processes, and the tax code. While the case originated in the context of Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical litigation, its reasoning may offer guidance for…
-
AMP Plus v. DMF: A Closer Look at Obviousness Analysis
On March 19, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in AMP Plus, Inc. v. DMF, Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) ruling that AMP Plus, doing business as ELCO Lighting, failed to prove claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,964,266 was unpatentable as obvious.…
-
Dollar Financial v. Brittex: Trademark Cancellation on Priority, Likelihood of Confusion, and the Zone of Natural Expansion
In Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Brittex Financial, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) partial cancellation of two MONEY MART trademark registrations, addressing critical issues in trademark law, including priority of use, the likelihood of confusion, and the limitations of the zone of natural expansion doctrine. This case highlights…
-
Realtek v. ITC: Federal Circuit Finds ITC Sanctions Inaction Unreviewable
In a decision that highlights the limits of judicial review over agency discretion, the Federal Circuit dismissed Realtek Semiconductor Corporation’s appeal against the International Trade Commission (ITC). The case, Realtek Semiconductor Corporation v. International Trade Commission, centered on the ITC’s refusal to issue a show-cause order against DivX, LLC in an investigation concerning patent infringement…
-
Regeneron v. Amgen: Patent Infringement and Biologic Formulations
On March 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., affirming the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction sought by Regeneron. This ruling is significant in the realm of the biologic pharmaceutical industry, as it centers on claim construction and…
-
In re Xencor: Written Description and Preamble Limitations
On March 13, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in In re Xencor, Inc., affirming the rejection of Xencor’s patent application for failing to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. This case raises important considerations regarding patent claim construction, particularly the treatment of…
-
Merck v. Aurobindo: Patent Term Extensions and Reissued Patents
Introduction The Federal Circuit recently issued a significant ruling in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., clarifying how patent term extensions (PTEs) apply to reissued patents under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The court upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) decision to calculate the PTE for a reissued patent based on…