Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury's finding that Cordis Corp.'s curved catheter infringed Dr. Jan K. Voda's patented catheters that consisted of straight portions. The Federal Circuit explained that Voda introduced substantial evidence establishing that the redesigned curve portion of the XB catheter meets the "straight" and "substantially straight limitations" under the doctrine of equivalents. On the issue of willfulness, the Federal Circuit found that, based on case records, a jury instruction in accord with the In re Seagate objective recklessness standard may have changed the result of the jury verdict on willfulness. Accordingly, it vacated the finding of willfulness and remanded the case for a determination of whether Cordis’ infringement was willful under the objective recklessness standard of Seagate. With regard to the district court's denial of permanent injunction, the Federal Circuit rejected Voda's argument based on the irreparable harm to its exclusive licensee. The Federal Circuit reasoned that irreparable harm must fall on the party seeking injunction. Here, Voda failed to show that Cordis’s infringement caused him irreparable injury and that monetary damages were inadequate to compensate him. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Voda’s request for a permanent injunction. More...

Holding: In this dispute over patents relating to image halftoning technology, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's finding of inequitable conduct against patentee Research Corporation Technologies ("RCT"), and reversed the award of $8 million in attorney's fees in favor of Microsoft Corp. ("Microsoft"). The district court found inequitable conduct because the inventors did not disclose their post-filing K factor tests to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). On appeal, the Federal Circuit held otherwise, stating that because the inventor’s work occurred after the filing of the patent application, these K factor experiments were not material to their inventive activity. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, the inventors had no obligation to report their later tests to the USPTO. Importantly, the inventor and her coauthors published the K factor tests to the scientific community. Publication is an act inconsistent with an intent to conceal data from the USPTO. In addition to the district court's error in its analysis of the materiality prong, the Federal Circuit also found the district court erred in its intent analysis. Because the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's determination of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct, it also vacated the exceptionality finding and the grant of attorney fees in favor of Microsoft. More...

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in this appeal a district court's denial of Novo Nordisk A/S's application for a preliminary injunction against Sanofi-Aventis in their patent dispute relating to a insulin injection product. The U.S. District Court earlier denied the preliminary injunction because patentee Novo Nordisk failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. Specifically, the district court reasoned that Sanofi raised substantial questions regarding whether the specification read as a whole suggests that the very character of the invention requires direct gearing and a non-rotatable piston rod to be part of every embodiment. On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that In light of this apparent conflict between the specification and the claims, the district court appropriately exercised its discretion in concluding that Novo has not established a likelihood of success on the merits. At the preliminary injunction stage, it was irrelevant whether this case presents greater issues of claim construction or validity - the existence of one or both of these issues was sufficient to justify the district court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction. In the light of the foregoing, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Novo's motion for preliminary injunction. More...

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this appeal affirmed a district court's summary judgment of non-infringement of a patent relating to non-verbal entry technology that uses “syllabic elements” via a standard touch tone telephone. In particular, the Federal Circuit, citing specification and prosecution history, concluded that the proper construction of "syllabic element" is a one-syllable letter group that either comprises a word or can be combined with other one-syllable letter groups to form a word. Further, the Federal Circuit saw no error in the district court’s claim construction, which clarified that a syllabic element may be as small as a single letter. In the final judgment stipulation, the parties agreed that none of the accused devices relied on a vocabulary of "only syllabic elements," as the term "syllabic elements" was construed” by the district court. Thus, the district court properly entered judgment that the accused devices did not infringe the asserted claims of the patent-at-issue. More...