August 5, 2020by Mamoru Kakuda
2020年7月22日、米国連邦巡回区控訴裁判所（CAFC）はIPRで提出されたsubstitute claimsに対しては、102条、103条にとどまらず、101条など特許性に関するすべての審査ができると、判示しました (Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC)。
July 31, 2020by Richard Treanor
On July 16, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Akeva L.L.C. v. Nike, Inc., Addidas America, Inc. (nonprecedential) in which the difference between removing a subject matter disclaimer from the specification, as opposed to removing one made in amendments and/or remarks during prosecution, amounted to the difference between winning and losing.
July 29, 2020by Mamoru Kakuda
2020年2月6日に、米国CAFCは、ライセンス対象特許の関連出願に暗黙のラインセンスを認める判示をしました（Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc.)。
July 22, 2020by Mamoru Kakuda
米国特許では、クレームのプレアンブル部分に記載さ入れたintended useは、原則として、クレームの限定要素とはみなされません。しかしながら、それがないとクレーム本体が成り立たないなどの、特別な事情がある場合は、クレームの限定とみなされる場合があります。
July 21, 2020by Mamoru Kakuda
2020年7月14日に、Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc.において、米国CAFCは、方法でクレームした特許の侵害において、287条(a)のマーキング義務を回避して製品売上をロイヤリティーのベースに含めることはできない場合がある、と判示しました。
July 10, 2020by Richard Treanor
On June 30, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Pacific Coast Building v. Certainteed Gypsum, Inc. (nonprecedential) agreeing with the District Court that patentee’s own term “scored flexural strength” was inadequately defined, and therefore indefinite.
July 8, 2020by Mamoru Kakuda
6月4日、IPR決定に対する控訴審において、CAFCは、米国特許法285条に基づく弁護士費用とコストの支払いをIPRの手続き分について認めない旨の命令を下しました (Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Almirall, LLC （Fed. Cir. 2020))。
July 3, 2020by Christopher Bayne
Obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) is a judicially-created doctrine designed to prevent a party from extending its right to exclude by enforcing claims in a later-filed patent that are patentably indistinct from claims in a “commonly-owned” earlier filed patent. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 (Fed. Cir. 1985). This doctrine applies to all commonly-owned patents regardless of whether the claims at issue were invented by different inventors. Id. at 895.
June 18, 2020by Christopher Bayne
Under the doctrine of “claim preclusion” (res judicata), a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5 (1979). Claim preclusion bars both those claims that were brought as well as those that could have been brought in the earlier lawsuit. Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Grp., Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1589, 1594-95 (2020).
“Issue preclusion” (collateral estoppel) bars “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, whether or not the issue arises on the same or a different claim.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748 (2001). Only issues “actually litigated” and “essential to the prior judgment” have preclusive effect. Id.
In addition to “claim preclusion” and “issue preclusion,” the so-called “Kessler doctrine” bars a patent infringement suit against the customer of a seller who had previously prevailed against a patentee in an earlier patent infringement suit. Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285 (1907).
On June 17, 2020, the Federal Circuit (“Court”) issued the precedential opinion of In re PersonalWeb Technologies, Inc. affirming that the Kessler doctrine barred future patent infringement suits against Amazon’s customers, because an earlier lawsuit brought by PersonalWeb against Amazon was dismissed with prejudice.
This decision illustrates that a settlement agreement failing to specify a patent owner’s right to sue can foreclose future patent infringement suits against other potential infringers.