Patent Law Summaries
Page 34 of 36 of Patent Law Summaries » New Judicial Opinions« First < 32 33 34 35 36 >
05-1546, 05-1579, 2007 WL 1138489,
Fed.Cir.(Cal.), 04/18/2007
Holding: In directing the remand of the case for patent infringement involving magnetic braking system for amusement park rides, the Court of Appeals found that factual matters needed to be threshed out by the district court regarding the issue of whether or not the defendant’s brake system could have been manufactured in such a way that the conducting rail was attached to the track.
More...
06-C-0462-C, 2007 WL 981712,
W.D.Wis., 04/03/2007
Holding: The district court granted defendants’ (foreign competitors’) motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit, stating that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants both under the specific and general personal provisions of the Wisconsin long-arm statute.
More...
AMD 06-469, 2007 WL 1040368,
D.Md., 04/06/2007
Holding: In ruling on a motion for execution on bond filed by defendant (competitor) against plaintiff (patent holder) which was able to earlier secure a temporary restraining order (TRO), the district court held that defendants suffered real and substantial harm as a result of the issuance of the TRO which plaintiff obtained for the purpose of stopping the implementation of the approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of defendant’s application to market a generic drug.
More...
04-1562, 04-1563, 04-1589, 2007 WL 1175673,
C.A.Fed. (N.Y.), 04/23/2007
Holding: In affirming the district court’s judgment declaring that defendants committed patent infringement, the Court of Appeals found that: (1) defendants’ process, which consisted of a separating layer that was composed of “almost 50% talc”, and that disintegrated in water, infringed upon plaintiffs’ patent which claimed “water soluble salt”; and (2) the claim in plaintiffs’ patent, that provided the method used in the drug formulation, was anticipated by prior art.
More...
2006-1504, 2007 WL 1226740,
Fed.Cir.(Fla.), 04/27/2007
Holding: In reversing in part and remanding in part the judgment of the district court finding that there was patent infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that: (1) defendant’s product, which consisted of a u-shaped or open-ended frame, did not infringe the method claim in a storage container patent, which is indicated as a four-sided or rectangular-shaped carrier frame; and (2) the arguments raised by patent-holder that its patent consisting of a rectangular-shaped frame barred it from claiming that the open-ended design of the defendant infringed its patent.
More...
Page 34 of 36 of Patent Law Summaries » New Judicial Opinions« First < 32 33 34 35 36 >
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 >
