Patent Law Summaries
Page 3 of 3 of Patent Law Summaries » New Settlements and Verdicts« First < 1 2 3
No. 3:05-cv-03560-MMC 2007 WL 2983099,
N.D.Cal., 06/25/2007
Holding: In this case involving patents relating to modular gas delivery technologies, the jury rendered a plaintiff’s verdict, awarding plaintiff Celerity, Inc. the sum of $13,900. According to Celerity, this amount was supposed to represent an 8 percent royalty rate on all sales of defendant Ultra Clean's Predator IGS (an integrated gas-delivery system) that had been made at the time of trial. The jury found that defendant infringed one of patents in dispute. The jury did not issue a finding of invalidity of any of the patent claims, contrary to Ultra Clean’s position that patents in issue should be declared as invalid.
More...
3:05-cv-02715, 2007 WL 901634 ,
N.D.Cal., 02/05/2007
Holding: In this case for infringement of patent directed toward techniques for the manufacture of fire-resistant glazing glass products, plaintiff patentee and defendants entered into a settlement agreement that would pay plaintiff the sum of $1,000,000.00 in damages and that would make defendants refrain from further manufacturing and distributing glass products.
More...
C 02-03378, 2007 WL 1765179,
N.D.Cal., 05/17/2007
Holding: In this patent infringement suit over patents covering a method of transforming data in extract, transform, and load (“ETL”) process of building data warehouse through the use of “transformation objects,” a jury verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff patent holder, and based on the findings that defendant indirectly infringed plaintiff’s patents, and that such infringement was willful, granted an award of $25,240,000.00 as reasonable royalty damages.
More...
02-CV-2060; 03-CV-0699; 03-CV-1108, 2007 WL 1039302,
S.D.Cal., 02/22/2007
Holding: In this infringement suit involving patents that were directed toward music coding that goes through a process so that musical compositions can be heard, or downloaded, from the computer, jury verdict was rendered in favor of patent holder (Lucent Technologies) against intervenor Microsoft, where the amount awarded reached $769,028,351.00 for each patent, computed from a 50 per cent royalty fee for each of the two patents, for a total award of $1,538,056,702.00.
More...
c 04 5429 cw, 2007 WL 686050 ,
N.D.Cal., 02/08/2007
Holding: In this infringement suit involving patents directed toward proteins used in growth hormone drugs for children with growth disorders, jury verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiffs which were awarded the sum of $7,500,000.00 in damages, and 15% to 20% of the revenues earned by defendants from the distribution of the latter’s competing drug.
More...
Page 3 of 3 of Patent Law Summaries » New Settlements and Verdicts« First < 1 2 3
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 >
