CAFC
October 5, 2021
The actual notice requirement of § 287 is only satisfied when the recipient is informed of the identity of the patent and the allegedly infringing activity.
July 7, 2021
The CAFC sided with Apple and Samsung, finding a patent for an “improved” digital camera to be an abstract idea and not patent-eligible subject matter.
September 10, 2020
Fed. Cir. 2019-1622: The CAFC found the same preamble created different limitations for different patents, limiting one patent but not the other.
August 10, 2020
Fed. Cir. 2019-2041 - The CAFC held that Packet Intelligence was precluded from claiming $3.5M in pre-suit damages because the marking requirement was not met.
April 16, 2020
Fed. Cir. 2018-2097 — The CAFC ruled that Valeant's patent for Relistor(R) is prima facie obvious based on similar compounds with overlapping pH ranges.
December 19, 2019
Fed. Cir. 2018-2087 - Plastic Omnium was unsuccessful in proving patent infringement because the patents used a "special definition" of the word "parison".
November 14, 2019
Fed. Cir. 2019-1803 – CAFC sides with Airbus, finding that prior art references may be analogous even if they are outside the "field of endeavour."
October 11, 2019
CAFC 2018-1763 – In fiercely dissented decision, a top US court has invalidated an automotive patent, further extending the reach of the controversial §101.
September 20, 2019
CAFC 2018-2207 – The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that “wherein” clauses in patent claims can be limiting if they are material to patentability.
September 6, 2019
CAFC 2018-2091 – The Federal Circuit refused to grant lost profits and joint ownership to ScentSational Technologies for their scent-releasing bottle cap.