Patent Infringement

August 19, 2016

Injunctions for Patent Infringement: Only “Some” Connection Between a Product’s Infringing Features And Demand For Competitor’s Product is Required

(No. 14-1802 Fed. Cir.) - The CAFC held that a patentee does not have to prove that the infringing features of a competitor’s product were the exclusive or predominant reason why consumers bought the competitor’s product to obtain an injunction for patent infringement. Rather, it is sufficient to prove that there was some connection between the infringing features and the demand for the competitor’s product.
August 8, 2016

FC Calls on Opening Canadian Patent Prosecution File Histories for Claim Construction

2016 FC 883 - The Federal Court followed the longstanding rule against the use of patent prosecution file history in interpreting the claims of a patent, but made a strong case for why the patent prosecution file history is worth considering, as is common practice in the U.S.
August 8, 2016

Knowledge of Related Patents not “Actual Knowledge” for Awarding Pre-Issuance Damages

In U.S. patent infringement, the “actual notice” requirement in 35 USC § 154(d) requires actual knowledge of a published patent application. Knowledge of related patents, even those sharing a description, and indirect references to a published patent application in emails may not be sufficient to prove actual notice.
July 3, 2013

FC Construes Claim, Holds “a” Means “one”

Zero Spill Systems (Int’l) Inc. v. 614248 Alberta Ltd. – 2013 FC 616 This action concerns allegations of infringement of two Canadian Patents No. 2,258,064 (064 […]