Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.

12 Citing cases

  1. Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.

    44 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2022)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    We concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the doctrine of assignor estoppel and accordingly affirmed its summary judgment of no invalidity. Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. , 957 F.3d 1256, 1267–69 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ( Hologic II ). We also adopted the district court's constructions of the terms that Minerva challenged, thus affirming the district court's summary judgment of infringement.

  2. Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

    141 S. Ct. 2298 (2021)   Cited 21 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the Patent Act of 1952 has "similar language" to its precursor statute against which the judicial exception of assignor estoppel developed, thus suggesting that that language did not evince sufficiently plain Congressional intent to abrogate the doctrine

    The court first "decline[d] Minerva's invitation to ‘abandon [that] doctrine.’ " 957 F.3d 1256, 1267 (2020). Citing both this Court's precedents and equitable principles, the court affirmed the doctrine's "continued vitality."

  3. Pulse Elecs. v. U.D. Elec. Corp.

    Case No.: 3:20-cv-01676-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2021)   1 Legal Analyses

    Id. at 6:9-11 (citing Oppo. at 2:15-17, 3:1-4, 3:14-15). In debating standing, both parties discuss two patent-infringement cases, which also involved motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction: Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 507 (D. Del. 2018), aff'd, 957 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2020) and Seaweed, Inc. v. DMA Prod. & Design & Mktg. LLC., 219 F. Supp. 2d 551 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). See Mot. at 11:15-27; Oppo. at 5:7-22.

  4. Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

    C.A. NO. 18-00217-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Jul. 8, 2021)

    In the first case, Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., C. A. No. 1:15-1031-JFB-SRF, Hologic alleged defendant Minerva Surgical, Inc.'s Endometrial Ablation System (“EAS”) infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 872, 183 (“the '183 patent”) and 9, 095, 348 (“the '348 patent”). See Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 325 F.Supp.3d 507 (D. Del. 2018), aff'd, 957 F.3d 1256 (8th Cir. 2020), vacated and remanded, No. 20-440, 2021 WL 2653265 (June 29, 2021). On motions for summary judgment, the Court found that Minerva had infringed the asserted claims of Hologic's patents and that Minerva's defense of invalidity was precluded by the doctrine of assignor estoppel.

  5. Cal. Expanded Metal Prods. Co. v. Klein

    Case No. 18-cv-00659-JLR (W.D. Wash. Apr. 28, 2021)

    (Id., 19-20.) Regarding the doctrine of assignor estoppel, Non-Parties argued in reply that the doctrine might be eliminated or limited by a pending Supreme Court case, Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 957 F.3d 1256, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. granted, 141 S. Ct. 975 (2021). During the hearing held April 27, 2021, Plaintiffs responded that even if the Supreme Court eliminates or limits the doctrine of assignor estoppel, issue preclusion would be asserted against attempts by S4S in the California Litigation to argue invalidity.

  6. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

    998 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2021)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating both contributory and induced infringement simultaneously

    Instead, 10X cites case law that stands for the proposition that assignor estoppel does not limit a defendant's ability to defend itself by arguing for a narrowing claim construction in view of the state of the art. See 10X Br. at 21–23, 39, 47–54 (citing Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co. , 266 U.S. 342, 350–51, 45 S.Ct. 117, 69 L.Ed. 316 (1924) ; Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. , 957 F.3d 1256, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ). But, in this case, the ALJ did not preclude 10X from arguing for a narrow construction based on the prior art, nor is there support for 10X's assertion that the ALJ declined to consider those arguments.

  7. Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.

    989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)   Cited 102 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "the jury was in the best position to determine" the persuasiveness of expert testimony

    Neither the parties nor the district court considered extrinsic evidence in construing this claim term. "Claim construction based on the intrinsic evidence is a question of law that this court reviews de novo." Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. , 957 F.3d 1256, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp. , 811 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ). "The construction of claim terms based on the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history are legal determinations."

  8. EcoServices v. Certified Aviation Servs.

    No. 2019-1602 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 8, 2020)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that "the claims of the ’262 patent do not recite the mere desired result of automated jet engine washing, but rather, recite a specific solution for accomplishing that goal"

    We review the district court's methodology for calculating damages, including supplemental damages, and an ongoing royalty, for an abuse of discretion. XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, 890 F.3d 1282, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 957 F.3d 1256, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2020). "A district court abuses its discretion by making a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or in basing its decision on an error of law or on clearly erroneous factual findings."

  9. Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.

    C. A. 20-925-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Sep. 15, 2022)

    On appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that the court did not abuse its discretion in applying assignor estoppel in the First Action. See Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 957 F.3d 1256,1267 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

  10. Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Sys.

    Civil Action 2:16-CV-00230-JRG (E.D. Tex. May. 4, 2022)

    PI asserts that a “patent has not been canceled” and a “PTAB finding . . . does not have preclusive effect as to this action unless and until the appeal is resolved.” (Id. at 4) (citing Hologenic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 325 F.Supp.3d 507, 518 (D. Del. 2018), aff'd, 957 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2020), vacated and remanded, 141 S.Ct. 2298 (2021)). The Court finds NetScout's argument unpersuasive.