DIRECT_INFRINGEMENT

- Adnexus 24-1551.pdf

• Sufficiency of pleading direct infringement of a specific limitation where the complaint incorporates claim charts and preliminary infringement contentions.: A patent complaint plausibly states direct infringement when it includes factual allegations (including in attached, incorporated claim charts/analyses) that, taken as true and with reasonable inferences drawn for the patentee, articulate why the accused product meets the challenged claim limitation; element-by-element pleading is not required, but factual content must support plausibility.

- Akamai 24-1571.pdf

• Summary judgment of noninfringement where accused “management center” receives only DNS queries that do not identify requested media content.: No triable infringement issue exists where undisputed evidence shows the accused component receives only communications that do not satisfy the claim-required “request for media content” element; a noninfringement judgment may be affirmed even assuming the patentee’s expert testimony if that testimony cannot bridge the element-to-evidence gap.

- Azurity Pharma 23-1977.pdf

• Infringement in a Hatch–Waxman case where the ANDA product contains an ingredient disclaimed from closed “consisting of” claims.: When the ANDA describes a product containing an ingredient excluded by disclaimer and not permitted by a closed “consisting of” claim transition, traditional infringement principles require a finding of noninfringement; where the ANDA directly addresses the infringement issue, it controls the comparison.

- Egenera 23-1428.pdf

• Summary judgment noninfringement where CPUs did not “emulate Ethernet functionality.”: Where claims require that the “plurality of computer processors” include logic that “emulate[s] Ethernet functionality,” evidence that processors merely use or communicate over Ethernet (while separate components perform the emulation) cannot create a genuine dispute of infringement under the existing, unchallenged claim scope.
• General verdict rule for multiple alternative noninfringement theories.: A general jury verdict of noninfringement must be upheld if substantial evidence supports any one of the accused infringer’s alternative factual theories submitted to the jury; the appellant must show lack of substantial evidence as to all alternatives to obtain reversal.
• No improper “intent” requirement from references to “programmed for the claimed purpose.”: A court does not add a scienter/intent element by describing whether an accused system’s components are programmed to perform the claimed functionality; such language can permissibly refer to the functional limitations recited in the claims.

- Finesse Wireless 24-1039.pdf

• Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the accused radios met the ’134 patent limitation requiring sampling a passband that includes both “signals of interest” and “interference generating signals.”: When the patentee’s infringement proof depends on expert testimony that is internally inconsistent and never clearly maps the accused features to the claim limitation, the verdict lacks substantial evidence and JMOL of noninfringement is warranted.
• Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the accused radios performed the seven specific third-order multiplications required by the ’775 patent claims.: Where the claims require performance of a specific set/number of operations, identifying only fewer distinct operations in the accused product—without evidence they correspond to or implement the required set—cannot support an infringement verdict; appellate counsel’s post hoc mapping cannot supply missing trial proof.

- Fraunhofer-Gesellshaft 23-2267.pdf [NEEDS_REVIEW]

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Jiaxing Super 23-1715.pdf

• Whether the jury’s infringement verdict for the ’140 patent was supported and consistent with the no-anticipation verdict.: A finding of no anticipation does not preclude a finding of infringement where evidence supports that the accused product meets the claim limitation at issue while the prior-art reference does not; substantial-evidence review sustains the jury’s infringement verdict when supported by credited expert testimony.

- Lab. Corp. 23-2350.pdf

• Whether an adaptor-binding primer can satisfy the ’597 patent’s construed “target-specific primer” limitation for literal infringement.: Under a construction requiring that the target-specific primer anneal to and mediate amplification of the target nucleic acid and not anneal to or mediate amplification of non-target sequences, a primer that anneals to a universal adaptor/common sequence present on all molecules does not meet the limitation, even if the adaptor is ligated onto a molecule that also contains a target region.
• Whether an accused primer can meet a limitation by working “in concert” with a different primer not recited as performing the limitation’s required function.: Where the claim construction and plain claim language require the recited primer itself to perform the specified targeting/non-target-exclusion functions, infringement cannot be shown by combining the accused primer with another primer’s targeting activity to collectively satisfy the limitation.

- Maquet Cardovascular 23-2045.pdf

• Whether the Federal Circuit should decide infringement in the first instance following a stipulated judgment predicated on claim construction: Where the parties stipulated to noninfringement based on claim construction and infringement was not litigated below, the Federal Circuit will not resolve infringement in the first instance absent a record eliminating genuine issues of material fact and entitling a party to judgment as a matter of law.

- Mitek Systems 23-1687.pdf

• Direct-infringement-based DJ standing where the patentee never accused the supplier’s product of meeting all claim limitations.: A supplier cannot establish a reasonable potential for a direct infringement suit when undisputed record evidence shows the supplier’s product (as provided) does not and cannot satisfy all claim limitations (including limitations performed by end users or requiring hardware components the supplier does not provide), and the patentee has not accused the supplier’s product alone of meeting every limitation.

- Regeneron Pharma 24-2351.pdf

• Preliminary-injunction likelihood of success where accused product omits a separately required claim component under the proper construction.: Under the adopted construction requiring distinct “VEGF antagonist” and “buffer” components, a product lacking a separate buffer raises at least a substantial question of noninfringement, defeating the patentee’s showing of likely success on the merits and supporting denial of a preliminary injunction.

- Rex Med. 24-1072.pdf

• Sufficiency of evidence for a “configured to cause” limitation where an intermediate component is present: Substantial evidence can support infringement of a “configured to cause” limitation where the claimed component is designed/arranged to cause the required result through an intermediate structure (and intent of the designers is irrelevant to direct infringement), especially in an open “comprising” claim that does not exclude additional elements.

- Steuben Foods 23-1790.pdf

• Whether JMOL of noninfringement based on the reverse doctrine of equivalents (RDOE) can stand where the patentee presented expert rebuttal testimony.: Even assuming RDOE remains available, JMOL is improper where the record contains substantial evidence—such as credited expert rebuttal—supporting the jury’s rejection of the accused infringer’s RDOE theory; the court may not discard rebuttal testimony as a matter of law where it provides an evidentiary basis for the verdict.

- Top Brand 24-2191.pdf

• Design patent infringement under the ordinary-observer test when key similarities fall within disclaimed subject matter.: When the accused design’s asserted similarities to the patented design lie in features the patentee surrendered during prosecution, those features cannot support an ordinary-observer finding of substantial similarity; if no non-disclaimed similarities support infringement, JMOL of noninfringement is required.

- Trudell Medical 23-1777.pdf

• Entitlement to JMOL of infringement where defendant’s primary noninfringement expert testimony should have been excluded.: Even if the defendant’s noninfringement expert testimony is excluded, JMOL for the patentee is not required where the jury could reasonably disbelieve the patentee’s evidence and find the patentee failed to carry its affirmative burden of proving infringement.

- Wuhan Healthgen 23-1389.pdf

• Whether the Commission’s infringement finding could be supported by SEC-HPLC aggregation data not taken precisely at the moment of importation.: In a § 337 infringement determination, the Commission may rely on reliable test data and record evidence to find the accused imported products meet a quantitative claim limitation, and the finding is sustained on appeal where substantial evidence supports that the tested characteristic would not rise above the claimed threshold during ordinary storage and shipment prior to importation.