The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today reversing the Western District of Texas district court’s indefiniteness analysis and explaining that it improperly found a contradiction between two claim limitations to arrive at its indefiniteness holding. Amperex Technology Limited filed an action seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement and challenged the validity of certain claims of Maxell, Ltd.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,077,035 for a rechargeable lithium battery and Maxell asserted infringement of the patent in a separate action. The two actions were consolidated in the Western District of Texas and the court ultimately held that two of the “wherein” clauses of the sole independent claim 1 of the ‘035 patent contradicted one another.
Recent Posts
- The Return of a Mandate on Patent Infringement Precludes Further Consideration of Issues Actually Decided
- CAFC Affirms TTAB Ruling that FIREBALL is Not Generic but Competitor’s Mark Won’t Confuse
- John Squires Becomes Official Nominee to Head USPTO
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, March 7: Lashify Wins ITC Appeal on Economic Prong Analysis; CAFC Says Apple Did Not Violate Discovery Obligations at PTAB; and ParkerVision Files Reply Brief on Rule 36 Appeal at SCOTUS
- Rio Tinto is Seeking an IP Counsel Innovation & Technology