• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
3,709 results

No. 67 OPINION filed for the court by Reyna, Circuit Judge; Taranto, Circuit Judge and Chen, Circuit ...

Document UATP IP, LLC v. Kangaroo, LLC, 22-2047, No. 67 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2024)
... we find that UATP failed to prove in its briefing below that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its patent infringement claim. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of the pre- liminary injunction as to the patent infringement ...
I We turn first to UATP’s patent infringement claim.
To establish a likelihood of success on the merits, “the patentee seeking a prelimi- nary injunction in a patent infringement suit must show that it will likely prove infringement, and that it will likely withstand challenges, if any, to the validity ...
Unlike UATP’s failure to present an adequate patent infringement case, UATP briefed all the necessary ele- ments of its trade dress infringement claim in the proceed- ings below.
... there was a failure of proof in UATP’s briefing below on the like- lihood of success on the merits of its patent infringement claim. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction as to the patent infringement ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

Precedential OPINION

Document Copan Italia Spa v. Puritan Medical Products Company LLC, 22-1943 (Fed. Cir. May. 14, 2024)
Copan Italia S.p.A. and Copan Diagnostics Inc. (collec- tively, “Copan”) brought a patent infringement case against Puritan Medical Products Company LLC and its affiliated companies (collectively, “Puritan”) in the United States District ...
On June 1, 2018, Copan filed a patent infringement complaint against Puritan in the District of Maine, alleging that Puritan directly and indirectly infringed and infringes several of its swab patents.
At that point, Puritan asserted it had immunity from certain of Copan’s patent infringement claims by virtue of the PREP Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d.
It further requested that the district court find from these materials that Puritan had immunity from “all claims for loss” under the PREP Act, including claims for patent infringement, on the grounds that all flocked swabs made at the P3 factory constituted “covered countermeasures.” 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a)(1). In response, Copan argued that Puritan enjoyed no im- munity from liability for ...
Alternatively, Copan argued that if the PREP Act’s immunity provision reaches patent infringement claims then it is unconstitutional.
To Puritan, this is an important issue, as it goes to whether Puritan can be required to defend itself against an allegation of patent infringement and whether it can be held liable for such infringement.
Copan further insists that the immunity issue Case: 22-1943 Document: 61 Page: 8 Filed: 05/14/2024 8 COPAN ITALIA SPA v. PURITAN MEDICAL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC is intertwined with the merits of its patent infringement claim ...
... ITALIA SPA v. PURITAN MEDICAL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC “qualified pandemic or epidemic product.” 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(i)(1)(A).3 Invoking these provisions of the PREP Act, Puritan moved to dismiss the patent infringement ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

No. 23 OPINION filed for the court by Lourie, Circuit Judge; Bryson, Circuit Judge and Chen, Circuit ...

Document Golden v. Qualcomm Incorporated, 23-1818, No. 23 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2023)
... 23 Page: 2 Filed: 10/10/2023 2 GOLDEN v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED Larry Golden appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing his antitrust, patent infringement, ...
The district court inter- preted the complaint, which included nearly 1,200 pages of attachments, as alleging (1) patent infringement, (2) anti- trust violations, and (3) unjust enrichment.
Because Golden appeals the district court’s dismissal as to each of his (1) patent infringement, (2) antitrust vio- lation, and (3) unjust enrichment claims, we discuss each issue in turn. I Regarding patent infringement, although a plaintiff ...
Golden argues that the claim charts in this complaint are enough to adequately plead patent infringement be- cause they “mirror” a claim chart presented in a previous case, Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 2022-1229, 2022 WL 4103285 (Fed. ...
Case: 23-1818 Document: 23 Page: 6 Filed: 10/10/2023 6 GOLDEN v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED the district court that “[Golden] fails to plausibly or ade- quately plead patent infringement.” Decision at *2.
Although Golden’s complaint seems to refer- ence patent infringement as the purported injury in this way, we have determined that Golden failed to properly plead patent infringement, supra.
III Based on Golden’s failure to state a claim for patent infringement, the district court held that he also failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment.
Because Golden failed to ade- quately plead patent infringement, we agree with the dis- trict court that he also failed to state plausible a claim for unjust enrichment.
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

No. 25 OPINION filed for the court by Moore, Chief Judge; Dyk, Circuit Judge and Reyna, Circuit Judge

Document Golden v. Apple Inc., 23-1161, No. 25 (Fed. Cir. May. 12, 2023)
Larry Golden appeals the Northern District of Califor- nia’s order dismissing his patent infringement, antitrust, and unjust enrichment claims.
See, e.g., Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming the dismissal of patent-infringement-based takings claims); Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 21-2160, 2022 WL 986984 (4th Cir. Mar. 31, 2022) (affirming dismissal of antitrust and unjust enrichment claims); Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 22- 1229, 2022 WL ...
Mr. Golden has filed at least six lawsuits assert- ing the same patent infringement claims against Apple in three jurisdictions.
... 2021 WL 4260782, at *2–3 (dismissing antitrust claims as frivo- lous); Golden V, 2021 WL 5074739, at *1–2 (dismissing pa- tent infringement claims as frivolous); Golden III, 819 F. App’x at 931 (affirming dismissal of patent infringement ...
... and patent infringe- ment based on at least Apple’s iPhone 11, iPhone 12, and Watch Series 5), with Complaint at ¶¶ 28, 45, 62, 79, 105, Golden V, No. 6:20-cv-04353-JD (D.S.C. Jan. 5, 2021), ECF No. 10 (alleging patent infringement ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

Nonprecedential OPINION

Document Ottah v. National Grid, 23-1666 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2023)
Chikezie Ottah appeals a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Case: 23-1666 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2023 2 OTTAH v. NATIONAL GRID dismissing his patent infringement claim ...
cite Cite Document

Precedential OPINION

Document Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., 22-2064 (Fed. Cir. May. 2, 2024)
... unable to “collect on an outstanding monetary damages award for patent infringement.” Appel- lant’s Br. at 13. In support of its position, NetScout cites several cases in which we vacated district court judgments of patent infringement ...
In Fresenius II, we held that a patent infringement judgment is immune to subsequent unpatentability find- ings only when that judgment “ends the litigation on the Case: 22-2064 Document: 47 Page: 9 Filed: 05/02/2024 PACKET ...
11 had sued the defendant for patent infringement and also for unfair competition.
Id. Accordingly, on remand, the district court dis- missed the patent infringement claim, granted injunctive relief on the unfair competition claim, and ordered the de- fendant to pay “damages sustained by reason of unfair trade to be ...
Citing this development as “new facts that had arisen since the decree entered,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), the patentee in Simmons asked the district court to review its previous dismissal of the patent infringement claim.
After the Third Circuit again reversed the district court, see id. at 86- 87, the Supreme Court reversed, thereby affirming the judgment of patent infringement.
While the patent infringement claim had been concluded on the merits, the case itself re- mained pending, which meant it could still be impacted by subsequent developments, including a determination re- garding patent validity.
We summarized the Simmons holding in Fresenius II as follows: “even though there had been an appellate deci- sion entirely resolving the patent infringement claims, be- cause there had not yet been a final judgment on the unfair ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

Nonprecedential OPINION

Document Ottah v. Verifone System Inc., 23-1219 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2023)
Chikezie Ottah appeals a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing his patent infringement claim as barred by claim preclusion.
For patent infringement cases, causes of action are the same if the accused products are “essentially the same” and “the same patents are involved in both suits.” PersonalWeb, 961 F.3d at 1375.
... that Mr. Ottah had failed to 1 Our precedent applies the law of the regional cir- cuit to the general principles of claim preclusion and Fed- eral Circuit law to the patent-specific portions of claim preclusion (i.e., whether patent infringement ...
cite Cite Document

Nonprecedential OPINION

Document Ontel Products Corporation v. Guy A. Shaked Investments Ltd., 22-1938 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2023)
Complaint for Patent Infringement, Guy A. Shaked Investments Ltd. v. Ontel Products Corp., No 1:20-cv-09901 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2019), ECF No. 1 [here- after “Ontel N.J.”]; Order Granting Motion to Transfer Venue, Ontel N.J. (July 30, ...
On August 9, 2021, Dafni and Ontel filed a joint stipu- lation to dismiss the ’562 and ’906 patent-infringement claims.
Ontel opposed Dafni’s motion to reinstate the ’562 and ’906 patent-infringement claims.
The most common is when the patent owner has a pending patent-infringement suit against it that asserts the patent claim at issue.
Dafni’s prior ’562 patent-infringement claim against Ontel is no longer pending.
Dafni and Ontel jointly stipulated to the with- prejudice dismissal of Dafni’s ’562 patent-infringement charge; the district court expressly stated that its dismissal order (based on a draft proposed jointly by Dafni and Ontel) was subject to ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>