Author: Umber Aggarwal*
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA, No. 16-1026, Courtroom 201
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will address infringement, validity, damages, and an injunction in an appeal involving computer cooling systems. Defendant-appellant CMI USA argues that its accused products lack a “removably attached” heat exchanging interface because the interface is not designed to be removed during use. In response, Patentee-appellee Asetek contends, among other things, that the jury’s infringement verdict is supported by substantial evidence, including the undisputed fact that the interfaces of the accused products are held in place by removable screws.
The Federal Circuit will also address whether the patent is valid over certain prior art and whether Asetek’s damages expert, as CMI contends, improperly asserted a lost-profits claim under the guise of a reasonable royalty. Finally, the Federal Circuit will address whether the district court abused its discretion by specifically naming CMI’s affiliate (Cooler Master) in a permanent injunction where the district court found that the non-party affiliate was working in active concert with CMI to infringe in the U.S.
National Oilwell Varco v. Omron Oilfield & Marine, No. 15-1406, Courtroom 402
In this appeal, National Oilwell argues that the district court erred by making substantive rulings on validity and infringement after the court found that it had no jurisdiction due to lack of standing. The Federal Circuit will also address whether the public use bar invalidates the asserted patent, directed toward an automatic driller. The original owner had allowed drilling personnel to use a prototype of the automatic driller with internal settings that only the owner could adjust, without otherwise explicitly enforcing an obligation of confidentiality
Tuesday, September 7, 2016
Xilinx v. Papst Licensing GmbH, No. 15-1919, Courtroom 201
Xilinx appeals the dismissal of its declaratory judgment claims based on a finding that the court lacked specific jurisdiction over Papst Licensing in California. Xilinx argues that the district court erred in applying the categorical rule that enforcing patents through litigation-backed licensing, such as patent license demand letters, is an insufficient basis for specific jurisdiction, despite Papst Licensing’s decades of patent acquisition and enforcement activities in California.
Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, No. 15-2076, Courtroom 201
Teva Parenteral Medicines appeals the district court’s finding that it induced infringement of Eli Lilly’s asserted patent claims covering a method of administering a specific drug. Teva Parenteral Medicines argues that the asserted claims require both a physician and a patient to perform all the steps, and, therefore, presents a divided infringement issue.
*Umber Aggarwal is a Law Clerk at Finnegan
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.