Cantor Colburn October / November 2016 Newsletter
Supreme Court throws Seagate test overboard
Ruling loosens standard for enhanced patent infringement damages
The U.S. Supreme Court has released its long-awaited decision on the proper criteria for enhanced damages awards in patent infringement cases. This article summarizes two patent infringement cases and reviews the two-part test for determining damages adopted in In re Seagate Technology, LLC. It explains why the Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s decisions in the two cases and sent them back for reconsideration under a new standard. A sidebar discusses how the Court’s ruling eases the burden of proof for enhanced damages.
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 14-1513, June 13, 2016 (U.S.)
Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 14-1513, June 13, 2016 (U.S.)
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184, April 29, 2014 (U.S.)
In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F. 3d 1360, Aug. 20, 2007 (Fed. Cir.)
Scope of design determines whether patent infringement challenge stays afloat
Design patents increasingly have become subject to attack by parties that fear they’ll be accused of infringement. This article looks at the recent Federal Circuit ruling in Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Co. Inc., which provides guidance about what to expect when a court considers the scope of design patent claims.
Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Co. Inc., No. 2015-1553, April 19, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
Law of nature: Some genetic diagnostic methods are patent-ineligible
Another patent covering genetic diagnostic methods has failed the Supreme Court’s two-step test for determining whether a patent related to a law of nature is patent-eligible. This article discusses Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C. The Federal Circuit Court weighed whether the claim at issue related to a patent-ineligible concept and whether the patent included an “inventive concept.”
Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., Nos. 2015-1202, 2015-1203, April 8, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
Ariosa v. Sequenom, Nos. 2014-1139, 2014-1144, June 12, 2015 (Fed. Cir.)
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10–1150, March 20, 2012 (U.S.)
