Tuesday September 8, 2015
Poly-America v. API Industries, No. 15-1248 – Courtroom 402
In granting summary judgment of noninfringement, the district court relied on an expert opinion that API’s accused products and Poly-America’s patented design are not substantially similar under the ordinary-observer test. This appeal asks the Federal Circuit to determine whether experts can opine on what ordinary observers would perceived under FRE 701, and whether testimony identifying only theoretical uses of the accused products, not actual or frequent occurrences, is sufficient to warrant summary judgment.
Wednesday September 9, 2015
Ergowerx v. Maxell Corp. of America, No. 14-1641 – Courtroom 402
Under Mallinckrodt v. Medipart, 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992), a sale does not exhaust the patentee’s rights when it is unauthorized or violates contractual conditions imposed by the seller. In this appeal, the parties debate whether Mallinckrodt’s conditional-sale doctrine remains good law after the Supreme Court’s Quanta decision. This question is currently before the en banc court in Lexmark International v. Impression Products, which will be argued in October.
Thursday September 10, 2015
Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, No. 14-1575 – Courtroom 402
In this appeal, the IPR petitioner submitted an expert declaration in response to the patent owner’s preliminary response and accompanying expert declaration. The patent owner challenges the admittance of the petitioner’s declaration, arguing that petitioners should be required to produce all evidence in the initial petition. The PTO has intervened in this case.
Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. Covidien, No. 14-1771 – Courtroom 402
In another appeal involving IPR practice at the PTAB, the patent owner argues that the institution decision and the final decision in an IPR should be made by different decision makers, and not the same PTAB panel. It argues that the statute requires divided decision-making, such that the Director of the PTO makes the institution decision, and a PTAB panel makes the final decision. The PTO has intervened in this case.
Friday September 11, 2015
MCM Portfolio v. Hewlett-Packard, No. 15-1091 – Courtroom 201
In this case, MCM Portfolio argues that the IPR practice at the PTAB is unconstitutional for violating the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial. The PTO has intervened in this case.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.