Ajinomoto Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
When a word is changed during prosecution, the change tends to suggest that the new word differs in meaning in some way from the original word.
Results for patent infringement
view Case Detail
Download PDF
Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.
Supreme Court held that the patent exhaustion doctrine is not limited by contractual restrictions imposed during sale and that it also applies to foreign sales.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V.
Inequitable conduct based on failure to disclose material references and litigation misconduct
Patent infringement; claim construction; damages.
Non-method claims requiring only the capability of performing a certain function are directly infringed even though the function is disabled in the accused product.
In re TS Tech USA Corp.
The Federal Circuit ordered the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to vacate an order denying defendant’s motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of Ohio after finding that the District Court clearly erred in its forum non conveniens analysis based upon Fifth Circuit precedent.
PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc
There is a presumption that the same claim terms within different claims in a patent will be construed in the same manner, unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims. The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel can bar a finding of infringement by equivalents.
NeoMedia Technologies Inc. v. AirClic Inc.
Defendant Delaware corporations are not subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois patent infringement suit, even though defendants maintain “hybrid” websites that allow exchange of information between users and the companies, because the websites do not reach the level of interactivity required to establish personal jurisdiction.