Patent Law Summaries
00 Civ. 4992(DC), 2007 WL 1470599,
S.D.N.Y., 05/22/2007
Holding: In rendering judgment against the plaintiff which filed a patent infringement suit, the district ruled that: (1) the plaintiff failed to show that defendant’s product literally infringed its patent, or was an infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; (2) plaintiff’s patents were unenforceable on account of inequitable conduct; and (3) plaintiff’s patents were invalid for obviousness.
More...
07 C 1721, 2007 WL 1317143,
N.D.Ill., 05/03/2007
Holding: In resolving a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the court in a patent infringement case, for the purpose of determining whether or not there exists the likelihood of infringement of a patent, must: (1) first determine, as a matter of law, the correct meaning and scope of the asserted claims, and then (2) compare the properly construed claims to the accused infringing product. (35 U.S.C.A. § 283).
More...
05-1112, 05-1151, 05-1152, 2007 WL 1518852,
C.A.Fed. (Del.), 05/25/2007
Holding: The Court of Appeals could review patent claim construction without deference, and could consider as well the construction of the contested claim terms on appeal, since the district court had already discerned factual issues in dispute involving those terms.
More...
CV 06-08088MMMJCX, 2007 WL 1597942,
C.D.Cal., 05/22/2007
Holding: Before specific jurisdiction can be established over a non-resident defendant under California law, three things must be shown: (1) the defendant did some act or consummated some transaction in California by which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state; (2) the plaintiff's claims arose out of such activity; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. (West's Ann.Cal.C.C.P. § 410.10).
More...
05-11369, Adversary No. 05-014112007 WL 1417631,
Bkrtcy.D.Mass., 05/15/2007
Holding: The debtor’s silence after the secured party sought to accept the patent in partial fulfillment of its claim did not amount to consent to the latter’s proposal, and therefore, the debtor retained its rights over the patent.
More...
Patent Law Commentaries
Following are Patent Law Commentaries elaborating on the significance of the most important of the Patent Law Summaries.
Page 1 of 2 of Patent Law Commentaries 1 2 >
Posted: 12/11/2008
Commentary: In Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corporation, 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an invention may be anticipated, even though it is proven non-obvious. The Court drew a clear separating line between the novelty analysis of 35 U.S.C. section 102 and the non-obviousness analysis of 35 U.S.C. section 103(a). While the general holding is perhaps well-founded, in a case such as this where the references cited under §102 and §103 were identical, the decision to remand seems wasteful and inappropriate.
More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Remands Waters' Drug Testing Patent Dispute with Cohesive Technologies
Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics
Posted: 08/15/2008
Commentary: In the case Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, ___ U.S. ____, 128 S.Ct. 2109 (2008), the United States Supreme Court clarifies and expands upon its holding in United States v. Univis Lens Co. In Univis, the court held that a patent is exhausted upon the sale of unfinished components that substantially embody the patent and which have no use except to practice the patent. In Quanta, the court clarified that the same analysis applies to process or method patents, not just product patents: When a component substantially embodies the process and cannot be used for any purpose other than to practice the patent, the process patent is exhausted upon sale of that component. The decision makes it more difficult for patentees to extract royalties from multiple parties for the same device. However, it revitalizes the integrity of the exhaustion doctrine and provides more certainty for downstream purchasers.
More...
Related summary: Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit’s Ruling, Finds in Favor of Quanta in LG’s Computer Technology Patent Suit
Acumed, LLC v. Stryker Corp., et al.
Posted: 05/20/2008
Commentary: In the recent case of Acumed, LLC v. Stryker Corp.,et al., (No. 2007-1115) (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2008) (“Acumed II”), the Federal Circuit addressed the meaning and application of language barring re-litigation of claims that “could have been brought” in a prior patent infringement case.
More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Ruling in Acumed v. Stryker, Remands Case
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., et al.
Posted: 05/16/2008
Commentary: In KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court broadened the applicable test in determining whether an invention is “obvious.” As predicted by patent law pundits, the KSR decision was followed by a number of cases in which infringers defended their actions – and won – by having the patent in question declared invalid for obviousness under this new standard.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the CAFC) recently heard and decided two separate cases that addressed the issue of obviousness post-KSR. These cases shed further light on the new standard for determining obviousness. While the results are quite different, the lessons for practitioners are, ultimately, the same.
More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Affirms Validity of Ortho-McNeil’s Patent On Epilepsy Drug Topomax
Judkins v. HT Window Fashion Corp.
Posted: 05/13/2008
Commentary: When a patent-holder discovers infringement, it’s not unreasonable for him to want to notify the alleged infringer’s clients of the infringement. Of course the alleged infringer would prefer that this communication with its clients not take place. But, as the Judkins case instructs, it will be nearly impossible for an alleged infringer to stop a patent holder from contacting its clients.
More...
Related summary: Patent Owners Allowed to Warn Buyers about Competitor's Infringing Products: Judkins v. HT Window Fashion Corp.
Page 1 of 2 of Patent Law Commentaries 1 2 >
