The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected multiple IP petitions, including one from NexStep, Inc., which argued Comcast Cable infringed on its patents. The Federal Circuit, affirming a lower court's decision, found NexStep failed to demonstrate infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The District Court ruled NexStep's expert testimony was too vague to support the jury's finding of infringement. As a result, both patents were deemed non-infringed, although the court upheld NexStep's patent eligibility claims under Section 101 of the Patent Act, marking significant implications for future patent litigation.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear IP petitions, including those from NexStep, Inc., which sought to prove Comcast Cable infringed its patents without successful evidence.
The district court ruled NexStep’s claims insufficient under the doctrine of equivalents citing the expert testimony's lack of detail, ultimately concluding with a ruling of non-infringement.
Collection
[
|
...
]