Tag: CAFC
-
Recentive v. Fox: Generic Machine Learning in a New Field Is Not Patent Eligible
In Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 23-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement suit on § 101 grounds, holding that Recentive’s asserted patents were directed to ineligible subject matter. The court concluded that the patents merely applied well-known machine learning techniques to the new…
-
Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart: “Sterile” Label in UK Document Found to Anticipate U.S. “Sterilized” Patent Claims
In Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart, No. 2023-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding that all challenged claims of Sage’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,398,642 and 10,688,067 were unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The ruling centered on whether a UK public assessment report (PAR)…
-
Heritage Alliance v. American Policy Roundtable: Descriptive Marks Without Acquired Distinctiveness Can’t Block Later Applications
In Heritage Alliance v. American Policy Roundtable, No. 24-1155 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to block registration of “iVoters” and “iVoters.com” despite evidence of earlier use of “iVoterGuide” and “iVoterGuide.com” by the challenger. The court agreed with the Board that Heritage’s marks were highly descriptive and had not…
-
Azurity Pharmaceuticals v. Alkem Labs: Prosecution Disclaimer and “Consisting Of” Language Bar Infringement Finding
In Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., No. 23-1977 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s ruling that Alkem’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product did not infringe Azurity’s U.S. Patent No. 10,959,948 (“’948 patent”) due to a clear and unmistakable prosecution disclaimer of propylene glycol. Background Azurity’s…
-
OSRAM v. Renesas: Reverse Engineering Limits Trade Secret Head-Start Damages
In AMS-OSRAM USA Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified key principles governing trade secret damages under Texas law, including how “head start” periods are calculated and when exemplary damages may be awarded in conjunction with equitable remedies. The decision also affirms that parallel contract damages are permissible where tied to non-overlapping…
-
In re Forest: No Patent Term, No Provisional Rights
In In re Forest, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal involving a patent application that would have issued after its statutory 20-year term expired. The court held that the applicant lacked any legally cognizable interest in obtaining such a patent, because it would confer neither enforceable rights under § 154(a) nor provisional rights under §…
-
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…