Cases

CHEN, Circuit Judge. Synopsys, Inc. appeals the District Court for the Northern District of California’s grant of summary judgment invalidating certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,530,841; 5,680,318; and 5,748,488 (collectively, the Gregory Patents) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 78 F.Supp.3d 958 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.' Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”), the petitioner, appeals a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,240,376 (“the '376 patent”). Mentor Graphics Corporation (“Mentor”), the patent owner, cro

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAXINE M. CHESNEY, United States District Judge Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment, filed October 3, 2014, by plaintiff Synopsys Inc. (“Synopsys”) and defendant Mentor Graphics Corporation (“Mentor”), by which the parties set forth their respective positions as to the patent eligibility of eight claims as recited in three patents held by Synopsys,

JUDGMENT Per Curiam This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

Stoll, Circuit Judge, with whom Newman, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, and Wallach, Circuit Judges, join, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. Dyk, Circuit Judge, with whom Hughes, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc. Moore, Circuit Judge, with whom Chen, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring in the denial of panel rehearing. ORDER PER CU

MOORE, Circuit Judge. The present appeal arises from litigation in the District of Oregon between Mentor Graphics Corp. (“Mentor”) and Synopsys, Inc., Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A;S., and EVE-USA, Inc. (“EVE”) (collectively, “Synopsys”). 1 Mentor asserted several patents against Synopsys, including U.S. Paten

OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, District Judge. In case no. 12-1500, the second of the three consolidated patent actions captioned above, EVE-USA, Inc., and Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A. (collectively “Synopsys”) move [461]1 to amend their answer to Mentor Graphics Corporation’s (“Mentor Graphics”) complaint. Synopsys seeks to add an affirmative defense and counterclaim a

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. DYK, Circuit Judge. Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) brought a suit in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) seeking to invalidate the Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) regulation that allows the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) to institute inter partes review on “all or

MEMORANDUM OPINION T. S. Ellis, III, .United States District Judge This is an Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)2 appeal from a decision by the Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”), vacating an order granting ex parte reexamination of Patent No. 6,240,376 (“’376 Patent”), owned by intervenor defendant, Mento

Case: 23-2032 Document: 90 Page: 1 Filed: 09/18/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ASTELLAS PHARMA, INC., ASTELLAS IRELAND CO., LTD., ASTELLAS PHARMA GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SANDOZ INC., ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD., DBA ZYDUS CADILA, LUPIN LTD., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICAL

Case: 23-2032 Document: 90 Page: 1 Filed: 09/18/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ASTELLAS PHARMA, INC., ASTELLAS IRELAND CO., LTD., ASTELLAS PHARMA GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SANDOZ INC., ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD., DBA ZYDUS CADILA, LUPIN LTD., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICAL

Case: 19-2192 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TECSEC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ADOBE INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant SAS INSTITUTE, INC., SAP AMERICA, INC., SAP AG, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., SYBASE, INC., SOFTWARE AG, SOFTWARE AG, INC., ORACLE CORPORATIO

Chen, Circuit Judge. U.S. Bancorp and its affiliate Elavon, Inc. (collectively, U.S. Bank) appeal orders in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (1) denying U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment that claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,945

Prost, Chief Judge. *763 Appellant ChargePoint, Inc. appeals the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which dismissed ChargePoint's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court held that the eight patent claims asserted by ChargePo

Case: 23-1435 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 10/18/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UTTO INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. METROTECH CORP., AKA VIVAX-METROTECH, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2023-1435 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Distri

LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Plaintiff Dropbox, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Defendant Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,058,399 ("the '399 Patent") and

STARK, U.S District Judge: *516Plaintiff Citrix Systems, Inc. ("Citrix") filed suit against Defendant Avi Networks, Inc. ("Avi") on December 21, 2017. (D.I. 1) Citrix alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,148,493 ("the '493 patent"), 8,631,120 ("the '120 patent"), 8,230,055 ("the '055 patent"), and 7,720,954 ("the '954 patent"). (D.I. 21)

Before the Court is Defendants' consolidated motions to dismiss, which contend that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ECF No. 71 ("Mot."). Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendants'

Joseph F. Bataillon, Senior United States District Judge This matter is before the court on the following motions: defendant Minerva Surgical, Inc.'s ("Minerva") Motion to Dismiss the '183 Patent and the '989 Patent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) (D.I. 275);1 Minerva's motion for partial summary judgment on: invalidity; non-infringement; n

Case: 22-1654 Document: 66 Page: 1 Filed: 09/09/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CONTOUR IP HOLDING LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GOPRO, INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2022-1654, 2022-1691 ______________________ Appeals from the