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
- ParkerVision is Latest to Petition SCOTUS for Review of CAFC’s ‘Heavy Reliance’ on Rule 36
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, November 8: Judge Dismisses Copyright Lawsuit Against OpenAI Filed by News Outlets; Reports Finds Record Number of Global Patent Filings; ITC Finds Semiconductor Company Infringed on Competitor’s Patent
- How Bayh-Dole Supporters Made a Successful Goal Line Stand
- How Recent Patent Damages Precedent May Increase Reasonable Royalty Awards
- The Judge Newman Story in Her Own Words: IPWatchdog Unleashed