Search for: "LANG v. USA"
Results 1 - 20
of 87
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Mar 2008, 10:23 am
Oral Argument in case: 07-2278; USA v. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 10:10 am
Wie weit reicht also der lange Arm der US-Jurisdiktion? [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 7:46 am
., Ltd. and HEC Pharm USA Inc., vacated its prior decision, and reversed the district court’s judgment that the claims of patent at issue were not invalid (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 1:29 am
The board’s claim construction and motivation to combine analysis were supported by the record (Shamoon v. [read post]
2 May 2023, 7:49 am
The only contentions of error the inventor made were issues of claim construction, which he forfeited by not raising them at the appropriate time during the inter partes review proceeding (Driessen v. [read post]
30 Dec 2021, 8:07 am
Circuit Judge O’Malley filed a dissenting opinion (Biogen International GmbH v. [read post]
5 Mar 2022, 2:25 am
The Federal Circuit held, however, that AAPA can be permissible in assessing whether the patent’s claims would have been obvious in an inter partes review proceeding as an admission in a patent’s specification, and remanded to the Board on that issue (Qualcomm Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2022, 4:03 am
Thus, the Board’s decision that the challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable was affirmed (Ethicon LLC v. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 6:14 am
Any error in the Board’s claim construction was harmless and substantial evidence, including the claim language and expert testimony, supported the Board’s findings of motivation to combine (Bot M8 LLC v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 8:19 am
Justice Gorsuch, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor, expressed strong disagreement with the majority’s interpretation of Section 315(b) as “another step down the road of ceding core judicial powers to agency officials and leaving the disposition of private rights and liberties to bureaucratic mercy” (Thryv, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2022, 7:44 am
A dissenting judge argued that one of the patents contained plausibly valid claims that recited technical improvements to a graphical user interface (International Business Machines Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 8:33 am
Circuit Judge Newman filed a dissention opinion to express her view that the patent described a patent-eligible mechanical and electronic device of defined structure and mechanism (Yu v. [read post]
12 Apr 2021, 7:05 am
” The Federal Circuit also held that the defendants were entitled to sanctions in the form of appellate attorney fees and double costs, against both the complaining individual and his legal counsel (Pirri v. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 4:21 am
Additionally, the appeals court held that the claims merely recite steps that do not amount to anything more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of filtering nonconforming data and regenerating a file without it (Glasswall Solutions Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2020, 4:47 am
The patent owner did not establish that the Board erred in its finding that the challenged claims were obvious in light of the prior art (Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 6:09 am
In addition, the lower court’s judgment was vacated and remanded for a new trial on its compensatory damages award, the jury’s willfulness finding, and the court’s enhanced damages and attorney fees award (Omega Patents, LLC v. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 11:56 pm
In an unpublished opinion, the appellate court affirmed a district court’s finding that the franchisor had a likelihood of success at trial and would be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction barring the franchisee from setting up a competing ice cream parlor (Handel’s Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 5:39 am
” The Federal Circuit construed the language consistently with the protocol described in the specification (SIPCO, LLC v. [read post]
29 Dec 2018, 5:21 pm
The district court rejected the plaintiff’s proposed claim construction and arguments but indicated that the plaintiff’s legal attempts were not so meritless as to render the case exceptional for purposes of the Patent Act’s fee shifting provision (Spineology, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 6:08 am
In Marchand v. [read post]
