Monthly Archives: November 2010

11/22-30/10 No New Opinions

Share
Posted in Docket Update | Leave a comment

11/19/2010 Non-Precedential–Experimental Sale–IN RE CHARLES CECCARELLI

Summary:  The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 17 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 3, 4, and 16 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Docket Update | Leave a comment

11/15-18/2010 No New Opinions

Share
Posted in Docket Update | Tagged | Leave a comment

“[W]e decided to enter the retail market so that their life does not seem so wonderful.” CEO Abbyy Software talking about the competition, not the customers. (Personal Jurisdiction case)

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1100.pdf Issue(s): Was the District Court correct in dismissing “the Abbyy defendants,” non-US corporations, for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service of process without an evidentiary hearing or further discovery despite the record reflecting importation of the software … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Longhorn of the Law (11th Amendment Immunity for U.Tex.)

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1059.pdf Issue(s): Was the District Court correct in denying A123’s motion to reopen the case and dismissing its declaratory judgment action against Hydro-Quebec (“HQ”) due to failure to join an indispensible party, the University of Texas? A123 SYSTEMS, INC., … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Never use the word “shall” unless doing a Monty Python routine. (Patent Standing Case)

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1539.pdf Issue(s): Was the District Court correct in granting standing to Abraxis in challenging  Navinta’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for direct and indirect infringement? ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAVINTA LLC, Defendant-Appellant. (2009-1539) Appeal from the District Court … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How to spend nine years ignoring an Examiner’s rejections

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1204.pdf Issue(s): Was the District Court correct in finding Cancer Research’s patent unenforceable for prosecution laches and inequitable conduct ? CANCER RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED AND SCHERING CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC. AND BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. (2010-1204) Appeal … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Rejected by the BPAI? Need to get some new evidence on the record? Adjudicate the decision in the district court, not the Federal Circuit

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/07-1066.pdf Issue(s): Was the CAFC panel correct rejecting Plaintiff’s Declaration because he did not previously submit it to the examiner or the Board ? GILBERT P. HYATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID KAPPOS, DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee. (2007-1066) Appeal … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Tagged , | Leave a comment

11/5/2010 No New Opinions Today

Share
Posted in Docket Update | Tagged | Leave a comment

Viral Infringers: Locked software code “infects” a product with direct infringement liability, even if the code is not executable by users

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1576.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in finding direct infringement of software code and  in its award of damages based on the jury’s reliance on expert testimony? FINJAN, INC. , Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. SECURE COMPUTING CORPORATION, CYBERGUARD CORPORATION, … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Tagged , , | Leave a comment