For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Atrium Medical Corp.
A minimum royalty provision applicable to two patents was still enforceable following the expiration of one of the patents. 		Patent Law, Contracts 9th Aug. 26, 2024
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi
Drug company's antibody cholesterol treatment patent did not meet Patent Act's enablement requirement because its claims would potentially include millions of undiscovered antibodies. 		Patent Law USSC May 19, 2023
U.S. ex rel Silbersher v. Allergan
An ex parte patent prosecution qualifies as a Federal hearing under the public disclosure bar to the False Claims Act. 		Patent Law 9th Aug. 26, 2022
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
Assignor estoppel only applies when assignor's claim of invalidity controverts representations assignor made in assigning patent. 		Patent Law USSC Jun. 30, 2021
U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc.
Unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by Secretary of Commerce to inferior office. 		Patent Law USSC Jun. 22, 2021
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.
Patent Act Section 145 specifies that expenses of proceedings shall be paid by applicant; but such expenses do not include salaries of attorney and paralegal employees of Patent and Trademark Office. 		Patent Law USSC Dec. 12, 2019
Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service
A federal agency is not a 'person' who may petition for post-issuance patent review under the America Invents Act; thus, judgment was reversed. 		Patent Law USSC Jun. 11, 2019
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.
Patent holder's damages award for lost foreign profits was a permissible domestic application of Section 284, not an extraterritorial one. 		Patent Law USSC Jun. 25, 2018
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC
Inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. 		Patent Law USSC Apr. 25, 2018
SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu
In its final written decision addressing the patentability of claims challenged in a petition for inter partes review, Patent Trial and Appeal Board must address every challenged claim. 		Patent Law USSC Apr. 25, 2018
Eat Right Foods v. Whole Foods
Where trial court resolves disputed point in favor of summary judgment moving party asserting defense of laches, judgment vacated. 		Patent Law 9th Jan. 30, 2018
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products LLC
Laches cannot preclude claim for damages brought within 6-year period set forth in Patent Act. 		Patent Law Mar. 22, 2017
Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp.
Single component produced in U.S. for product assembled abroad not 'substantial portion' of product under test creating liability for patent infringement. 		Patent Law Feb. 23, 2017
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee
Patent Office inter partes review nonappealable due to clear language of 35 U.S.C. §314(d). 		Patent Law Jun. 20, 2016
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
'Seagate' patent infringement test 'unduly rigid' because it requires threshold showing of objective recklessness, even where defendant acted with clear intent to violate patent law. 		Patent Law Jun. 13, 2016
Magnetar Techs. v. Intamin
Reasonable attorney could have believed that 'on-sale bar' did not apply in patent infringement action; renders dismissal of malicious prosecution claim appropriate. 		Patent Law Sep. 15, 2015
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.