Federal Circuit Report

In a 6-4 en banc decision, Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp [Fed. Cir. Case 2012- 1014 (2/21/2014)], the Federal Circuit held that arguments and evidence presented by the appellants, the dissent, and many of the amici did not justify reversing the holding of Cyb...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe IP Litigator : Devoted to Intellectual Property Litigation and Enforcement Vol. 20; no. 2; p. 26
Main Author Heuser, Peter E
Format Trade Publication Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York Aspen Publishers, Inc 01.03.2014
Subjects
Construction
District courts
Federal court decisions
Intellectual property
Patent law
State court decisions
Trials
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In a 6-4 en banc decision, Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp [Fed. Cir. Case 2012- 1014 (2/21/2014)], the Federal Circuit held that arguments and evidence presented by the appellants, the dissent, and many of the amici did not justify reversing the holding of Cybor Corp v. FAS Techs, Inc [138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc)], which held that claim construction required a de novo standard of review. The majority opinion by Judge Newman, the longest sitting Federal Circuit judge, noted that the question before it was not simply whether to defer to district courts or instead to examine claim construction de novo. The central purpose of the formation of the Court was to reduce the widespread lack of uniformity and uncertainty of legal doctrine that existed in the administration of patent law. The dissent noted the high rate of Federal Circuit reversal and the concern that this raises with trial judges, litigants, and academics.
ISSN:1086-914X