CAFC
March 7, 2022
Travel Sentry, Inc. v David A. Tropp, No. 2021-1908 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 14, 2022). The patents claimed an economic practice and method of organizing human activity, which is not subject-matter that can be protected under the patent system.
February 24, 2022
The US CAFC ruled that an examiner is a "person of ordinary skill in the art" and is owed an appropriate level of deference.
October 5, 2021
Fed. Cir. No. 19-2286: 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
Fed. Cir. No. 2020-1760: 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.