Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Patent’

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

Tweets – Decisions Released on January 25, 2010

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
_____________________________________________________

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
_____________________________________________________

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

Tweets – Decisions Released on January 22, 2010

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

Tweets – Decisions Released on January 15, 2010

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?

094_patent_figure_2

Download Stored Opinion

Tweets – Decisions Released on January 6, 2010

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Venue
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Motorola, Inc. v. VTech Communications, Inc.
2009-Miscellaneous-909
USDC ED Texas

Is defendant entitled to mandamus relief from the district court’s refusal to transfer a patent infringement case from the Eastern District of Texas to the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) where defendant is a company domestically headquartered in Oregon, has significant foreign operations in Hong Kong and operates a research and development entity from British Columbia, in consideration of In re Horseshoe Entertainment, 337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003)?

Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________

Tweets – Decisions Released on Dec. 22, 2009

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
_____________________________________________________

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Electro-Mechanical Industries, Inc. v. Universal Support Systems, LLC
2008-1530, 2009-1137
USDC SD Texas

On estimation proceeding for bankruptcy purposes, had the district court erred by determining that U.S. Patent No. 6,669,163 for a foot apparatus on metal racks which hold telecommunications equipment was not invalid as obvious, construing the claims gravamen as being the spacing of a receptacle above a base that “permits the passage of air, wind, or water” as set forth below, holding the patent was infringed willfully, doubling the damages award on a reasonable royalty basis and enhancing an exceptional case award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to $1,000,000 despite the actual fees proved being $700,000?

Patented Foot
Patented Foot

Support apparatus, comprising:
a planar base;
a hollow receptacle for receiving an object; and
a plurality of radially spaced apart buttresses having a first end connected to said base and a second end connected to an outer surface of said receptacle, said buttresses mounting said receptacle separate from and spaced above, said base and spaced outwardly from said receptacle to cause force received by said receptacle from supporting said object to be transferred and distributed to different portions of said base by said buttresses; and wherein at least said base, said receptacle and said buttresses are made of electrically conductive material and whereby the spacing of said receptacle above said base permits the passage of air, wind, or water to decrease susceptibility to movement of said apparatus.

Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________

Tweets – Decisions Released on Dec. 17, 2009

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

Design Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.
2009-1237
USDC SD Florida

For purposes of determining design patent invalidity on 35 U.S.C. § 102 anticipation grounds in view of patent references, should a district court apply the point of novelty test or should it only utilize the ordinary observer test and, further, did the court err by failing to compare all aspects of the footwear patents-in-suit, such as insoles, with the prior art? (J. Clevenger dissent)

Designs
Design Comparison
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________