Equitable estoppel does not apply to pre-reexamination conduct of substantively modified reexamination claims

John Bean v. Morris & Associates was decided on April 19, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Arkansas. In 2002, after plaintiff John Bean had contacted defendant Morris’ customers alleging infringement, Morris sent John Bean a letter notifying John Bean that its patent was invalid based on multiple prior …

What We Learned About Patent Remedies In 2016 (as published on Law360)

Link to article on Law360.  2016 was a busy year for patent remedies. The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases, one on willfulness and the other on design patent damages. The Federal Circuit made law on willfulness, enhancement, attorney fees, antitrust damages, preissuance patent damages, and laches. This article will review these …

2016 Mid-year review of remedies decisions

In this post, I will give a mid-year review of the patent remedies cases. The relevant time period is January 1st to June 30th, 2016. The graph below shows how many times each decision has been cited according to Google scholar. The graph is current as to November 29, 2016. …

No intervening rights despite that patentee modified the claims after a prior art rejection during reexam

Convolve v. Compaq was decided on February 10, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court granted summary judgment of no infringement, and that liability was precluded by intervening rights arising from a December 2, 2008 substantive amendment to the asserted claims. Plaintiff Convolve appealed. The Federal Circuit …

Knowledge of the grandparent patent provides no actual notice for pre-issuance damages

Rosebud v. Adobe was decided on February 9, 2016 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The suit revolved around the ‘280 patent, a continuation of the ‘699 patent, which itself is a continuation of the ‘760 patent (the grandparent patent). There, the district court granted defendant-Adobe’s motion for summary judgment that …

Pre-reexamination damages not proper where patentee narrowed the claim during reexam

R+L Carriers v. Qualcomm was decided on September 17, 2015 on appeal from the Southern District of Ohio. There, after bringing suit, the plaintiff R+L filed for ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit. Although the patent survived reexam, R+L added language to the claim at issue. Because defendant Qualcomm ceased its alleged infringing …