Posts Tagged ‘Infringement’
Friday, February 5th, 2010
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc.
2009-1099, -1108, -1119
USDC SD New York
On review, should reversal obtain due to: (1) the district court’s claims construction of a limitation “completely free with respect to the pan” to mean “practically or functionally free” given the full patent disclosure; (2) the jury’s finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents based on its evaluation of expert testimony and the tribunal’s rejection of defendants’ prosecution history estoppel argument; (3) the district court’s decision to admit an expert witness over defendants’ objections the witness lacked credible expertise in the pertinent art; (4) a lack of clarity as to whether the jury had determined damages either exclusively or in some combination of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), direct infringement, or (b), inducement of infringement; (5) the district court’s ruling not to reduce the damages award despite defendants’ argument the record failed to support that plaintiffs had marked substantially all of patented articles pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) or, in the alternative, plaintiffs had withheld documents relevant to patent marking; (6) the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for a new trial which alleged counsel for plaintiffs had made an improper closing argument concerning reasonable royalty damages by mentioning “substantial profit” since the district court had already rejected plaintiffs’ claim for lost profits; and, (7) the district court’s decision to set aside awards for enhanced damages and legal fees in light of the intervening opinion In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)?
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________
Tags: 35 USC 271, 35 USC 287, 497 F.3d 1360, Claims Construction, Doctrine of Equivalents, Enhanced Damages, Expert Witness, Inducement, Infringement, Patent Marking, Prosecution History Estoppel, Royalty, Seagate
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Friday, February 5th, 2010
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.
2008-1365, -1366, 2009-1030
USDC SD New York
In respect of several patents asserted for computer screen and terminal emulation technologies, did the district court commit clear error by holding one patent valid and infringed, another patent uninfringed, damages could be calculated by a hypothetical royalty of 12.5% plus prejudgment interest, defendant’s future activity with certain technologies would be subject to a license from plaintiff at the 12.5% rate, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions against plaintiff and its counsel were merited because plaintiff’s counsel had continued to assert patents that plaintiff already admitted were not infringed? (J. Newman dissent)
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: Damages, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Infringement, License, Royalty, U.S. Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Monday, January 25th, 2010
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
2009-1032
USDC Delaware
Can a terminal disclaimer filed in the course of litigation overcome an obviousness-type double patenting determination by the district court given the supposed invalidating reference had already expired or does 35 U.S.C. § 121 provide safe harbor to plaintiff where the patent in contention is a divisional patent of a divisional of a common application for which a restriction requirement had been entered? (J. Dyk dissent)
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________
Tags: 35 U.S.C. § 121, Divisional, Double Patenting, Infringement, Restriction Requirement, Terminal Disclaimer, U.S. Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Monday, January 25th, 2010
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company
2009-1008, -1009, -1010, -1034, -1035, -1036, -1037
USDC ND California
Had the district court properly denied plaintiff’s motions for judgment as a matter of law that sought a new trial and to set aside a jury verdict which had found infringement but deemed the subject patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 112 ¶ 1?
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________
Tags: 35 U.S.C. § 102, 35 U.S.C. § 103, 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, Anticipation, Infringement, Invalid, U.S. Patent, Written Description Requirement
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Monday, January 25th, 2010
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company
2008-1511, -1512, -1513, -1514, -1595
USDC ND California
Did the district court err at bench trial by holding certain patent claims invalid due to obviousness, other claims invalid on anticipation grounds or remaining claims not infringed else unenforceable on inequitable conduct grounds?
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: 35 U.S.C. § 102, 35 U.S.C. § 103, Anticipation, Inequitable Conduct, Infringement, Obviousness, U.S. Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Friday, January 22nd, 2010
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc.
2009-1121
USDC CD California
Was patent claims interpretation that deemed “facsimile” to mean only message types which utilize standardized fax machine protocol and are routed over switched telephone networks in error, or had the district court misapprehended certain data “mailbox” storage steps in the claimed processes and, therefore, the court’s grant of summary judgment finding noninfringement should be reversed?
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: Claims Construction, Infringement, U.S. Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Friday, January 15th, 2010
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co.
2009-1146
USDC SD New York
Had the district court erred in its grant of summary judgment of noninfringement by construing the terms “information transmitter” and “recognition device” to exclude any “personal action” by an elevator user other than “walking into the monitored area” given the asserted patent claims RFID card technology that requires as an activation step the user to swipe a card through a building security turnstyle prior to accessing the elevator banks?
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: Claims Construction, Infringement, U.S. Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Restaurant Technologies, Inc. v. Jersey Shore Chicken
2009-1176
USDC New Jersey
On motion for summary judgment, was a means-plus-function claim of a patent for restaurant fryer oil interconnections infringed literally else by doctrine of equivalents given the disclosures at bar vice the strictures of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 in view of Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)?
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, Infringement, Means-Plus-Function Claim, Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010
Trade Identity
First Circuit
Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, LLC
2009-1376
USDC Massachusetts
Given summary judgment proceedings on a purported settlement agreement in respect of Lanham Act claims, did one party have superior service mark rights over the other concerning dueling priority to GREAT CLIPS versus GREAT CUTS for services relating to hair cutting services pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a), (c) (2006) and under Mass. Gen. Laws chs. 93A, 110H (2009)?
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: Infringement, Settlement Agreement, Trade Identity
Posted in Trade Identity | Comments Off
Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
i4i Limited Partnership v. Microsoft Corporation
2009-1504
USDC ED Texas
Should a jury verdict which found that defendant had willfully infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449 for an XML editor in the word-processing context be set aside along with a permanent injunction and damages award given defendant’s contention the patent claim terms “distinct” and “independent manipulation” render the subject patent invalid as anticipated by patent references under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or obvious?
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________
Tags: 35 U.S.C. § 102, 35 U.S.C. § 103, Claims Construction, Infringement, U.S. Patent, Willful
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off