Cases

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. ArcelorMittal appeals from the decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. RE44,153E (the RE153 patent) is invalid because certain claims were broadened after two years of issuance in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 251. 1 Becaus

MEMORANDUM. Sue L. Robinson, United States District Judge At Wilmington this 4th day of December, 2015, having reviewed the pending motions1 filed by the. parties2 in both of the above captioned casps, and having heard, oral argument on the same, I will grant defendants’ motions for summary judgment and deny plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss in Civ. No

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This case has a convoluted history, one that illustrates the collision between the administrative and judicial remedies available to a patent owner. There are two patents at issue — U.S. Patent No. 6,296,-805 (“the ’805 patent”)1 and U.S. Patent No. RE44,153 E (“the RE153 patent”)2

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Opinion dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge WALLACH. DYK, Circuit Judge. ArcelorMittal France and ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine (collectively “ArcelorMittal”) appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The judgment is based on a jury verdict finding that defendants AK Steel Corporation, Se

MEMORANDUM OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs ArcelorMittal France and ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine (collectively “plaintiffs”) brought suit against defendants AK Steel Corporation (“AK Steel”), Severstal Dearborn, Inc. (“Severstal”), and Wheeling Nisshin, Inc. (“Wheeling”) (collectively “defendants”), alleging infringement of one or more cl

755 F.Supp.2d 542 (2010) ARCELORMITTAL FRANCE, and ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine, Plaintiffs, v. AK STEEL CORPORATION, Severstal Dearborn, Inc., and Wheeling-Nisshin, Inc., Defendants. Civ. No. 10-050-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. December 16, 2010. *544 Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire, and Chad S.C. Stover, Esq

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ARCELORMITTAL, ARCELORMITTAL ATLANTIQUE ET LORRAINE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AK STEEL CORPORATION, SEVERSTAL DEARBORN, INC., WHEELING-NISSHIN INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2016-1357 ______________________ Appeal from the United State

Wallach, Circuit Judge, dissenting. “If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy” under Article III of the Constitution, we “have no business deciding it.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006). Indeed, “[n]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government.” Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org.,

Reyna, Circuit Judge. Appellants appeal from a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment as a matter of law after concluding Appellants' infringement action was collaterally estopped. Because evidence indicates a material difference in the accused products in this action, collateral estoppel does not appl

Slip Op. 18- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE HYUNDAI STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge Defendant, ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC, STEEL Court No. 16-00161 DYNAMICS, INC., CALIFORNIA STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., AK STEEL CORPORATION, UNITED STATES STEEL COR

Slip Op. 17- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE HYUNDAI STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge UNITED STATES, Court No. 16-00238 Defendant, PUBLIC VERSION and STEEL DYNAMICS, INC., et.al., Defendant-Intervenors.

Slip Op. 26- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE SAHA THAI STEEL PIPE PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED, Plaintiff, and THAI PREMIUM PIPE CO. LTD, Plaintiff-Intervenor, Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge v. Court No. 21-00627 UNITED STATES, Defendant,

Case: 23-1437 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ IN RE: MIODRAG KOSTIC, GUY VANDEVELDE, Appellants ______________________ 2023-1437 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 16/667,530. ________

Case: 18-2390 Document: 134 Page: 1 Filed: 08/29/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GILBERT P. HYATT, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. COKE MORGAN STEWART, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defenda

DYK, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join in the majority’s holding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,323,463 (“the '463 patent”) are invalid as obvious, and that the district court correctly construed the relevant claims of the patents. I would hold, however, that claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 7,030,149 (“the '149 patent”) is also invalid as obvio

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JOHN R. CHOATE, CHOATE, INC., and MYCO INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellants, v. RYSURG, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, RYSURG, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, RYNERSON, INC., a Florida corporation, JAMES R. RYNERSON, and BLEPHEX, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,

Case: 20-1461 Document: 95 Page: 1 Filed: 05/14/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UTTAM GALVA STEELS LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellee v. UNITED STATES, AK STEEL CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC, STEEL DYNAMICS, INC., UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, NUCOR CORPORATI

Slip Op. 25-24 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE Court No. 20-00105 CATFISH FARMERS OF AMERICA and eight of its individual members, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and NTSF SEAFOODS JOINT STOCK COMPANY, Defendant-Intervenor. Before: M. Miller Baker, Judge

Slip Op. 24-129 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE Court No. 20-00008 NEW AMERICAN KEG, d/b/a AMERICAN KEG COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and NINGBO MASTER INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO., LTD., and GUANGZHOU JINGYE MACHINERY CO., LTD., Defendant-Intervenors.

Case: 22-1387 Document: 67 Page: 1 Filed: 09/01/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SISVEL INTERNATIONAL S.A., Appellant v. SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., TELIT CINTERION DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, Appellees ______________________ 2022-1387, 2022-1492 ______________________