In this case, Wash World appealed a district court's decision finding infringement of Belanger's patent for a vehicle spray washer with a lighted spray arm. The appellate court addressed issues of claim construction, ultimately finding that WASH WORLD had forfeited most of its arguments by not properly raising them in the lower court. However, the court agreed with Wash World regarding the damages award, finding insufficient evidence to support lost profits from unpatented "convoyed sales." Consequently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the infringement finding but vacated and remanded the damages portion, instructing the district court to reduce the award by approximately $2.6 million.

In this case, the appeals court affirms the lower court's findings of patent invalidity due to anticipation by prior art and the dismissal of the Lanham Act claim for lack of unambiguous falsity in advertising. It also upholds sanctions against the plaintiffs for bad faith litigation conduct related to disclosing patent ownership changes. However, the court vacates and remands a portion of the sanctions concerning a violation of a local patent rule, requiring further findings of bad faith. Lastly, the court affirms the denial of attorney's fees based on the defendants' allegations of inequitable conduct by Lowe before the PTO.

Maquet appealed a district court judgment of non-infringement concerning claims in its U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783 related to intravascular blood pump systems. The appellate court reviewed the district court's claim construction of terms like "guide mechanism comprising a lumen" and "guide wire," finding errors in the application of prosecution disclaimer. As a result, the Federal Circuit vacated the lower court's judgment on the '783 patent and remanded the case for further proceedings based on a corrected understanding of the claim language. The judgment of non-infringement concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,789,238 was left undisturbed as it was not part of the appeal.

This case is an appeal by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals against a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction. Regeneron sought to prevent Amgen from marketing a biosimilar of its drug EYLEA®, arguing patent infringement. The central issue is whether Regeneron's patent requires the "VEGF antagonist" and a "buffer" in its formulation to be separate components. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the patent claims imply these are distinct elements. This finding means Amgen's biosimilar, which uses the aflibercept itself for buffering, likely does not infringe Regeneron's patent. The court's analysis heavily relied on the specific language of Regeneron's patent claims and its written description.

This concerns Innova's appeal of a district court's preliminary injunction favoring Power Probe in a patent infringement lawsuit. Power Probe sued Innova for allegedly infringing its patent on an electrical test device. The district court initially denied the injunction but was reversed on appeal regarding claim construction. Subsequently, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding Power Probe likely to succeed on the merits and suffer irreparable harm. The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court's decision based on four factors for preliminary injunctions and the Ninth Circuit's abuse of discretion standard. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion in its analysis of the relevant factors.

The central issue here is the proper calculation of patent term extensions (PTEs) for reissued patents under the Hatch-Waxman Act, specifically whether the extension should be based on the original patent's issue date or the reissued patent's issue date. The court affirms the district court's finding that for reissued patents retaining claims to a drug product that underwent regulatory review after the original patent's issuance, the PTE should be calculated from the original patent's issue date, supporting the purpose of compensating for lost market exclusivity during regulatory delays.

IQRIS Technologies LLC and Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., concerns quick-release systems for tactical vests. IQRIS appealed a district court's summary judgment of noninfringement, which was based on a narrow interpretation of the patent claim term "pull cord." The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court's claim construction, specifically addressing whether a "pull cord" must be directly pulled and whether it can include a handle. Ultimately, the appellate court found the district court's construction to be erroneous, holding that the term does not necessarily require direct pulling and can encompass cords with handles. As a result, the Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case back to the district court for reconsideration under the corrected claim interpretation regarding both literal and equivalent infringement.

The court affirmed the district court's decision that IMMUNOGEN's patent application for a specific dosing regimen of its cancer drug, IMGN853, was unpatentable due to obviousness. The central issue was whether using an adjusted ideal body weight (AIBW) based dosage of 6 mg/kg for the drug would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art at the time of the invention, considering existing knowledge about the drug and dosing methods, even if the specific ocular toxicity problem the inventors aimed to solve was not yet publicly known for this drug. The court found that prior art disclosed similar dosing and recognized the potential for toxicity, making the claimed dosing regimen obvious.

In Odyssey Logistics & Technology Corp. v. Stewart, the court affirmed the dismissal of Odyssey's complaint, which sought to compel the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review a prior Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision. Odyssey's request for review was based on an Appointments Clause challenge, which they raised after the Supreme Court's decision in Arthrex. The court found that Odyssey forfeited this argument by failing to raise it during their original appeal, and therefore the PTO did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for Director review. The dismissal was ultimately affirmed for failure to state a claim, rather than lack of jurisdiction.

This Federal Circuit opinion details Celltrion's appeal of a preliminary injunction preventing them from launching a biosimilar version of Regeneron's EYLEA. The court affirms the district court's decision, finding that Celltrion did not demonstrate a substantial question of invalidity regarding Regeneron's patent. Key to the ruling was the patentable distinction found in the '865 patent's stability requirement compared to an earlier patent. The court also noted that previous appeals from other companies challenging similar injunctions were considered, with some arguments conceded by Celltrion based on those prior rulings.