Click here to review IPO’s plain English, one-paragraph summaries of Federal Circuit precedential patent and trademark opinions during the first quarter of 2015. The 26 summaries are arranged in date order and rated with 1 to 4 stars. Some noteworthy Federal Circuit cases:
Bard Peripheral, Jan. 14, in which infringement was willful and an invalidity defense was not objectively reasonable;
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Feb. 5, in which the USPTO’s decision to institute IPR was not appealable and “broadest reasonable interpretation” was the proper standard for interpreting claim scope;
Helferich Patent Licensing, Feb. 10, in which the ability to enforce patent claims for providing content to devices was not exhausted by a license to make the devices;
Gilead Sciences, Feb. 26, in which the USPTO did not err in deducting time the applicant took to file a supplemental disclosure statement from a patent term adjustment award;
Stryker Corp., March 23, in which the court commented on the standard of review of the objective reckless prong of willful infringement; and
Halo Electronics, March 23, in which the court denied en banc rehearing of an enhanced patent damages question under Patent Act section 284.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued 3 IP-related opinions in the first quarter:
In Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court held that the proper review standard for factual findings in patent claim construction is clear error, not de novo.
In Hana Financial, the court held that trademark “tacking” is a question for the jury.
And in B&B Hardware, the court held that decisions of the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have preclusive effect in subsequent court proceedings “if the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met.”
