Monthly Archives: December 2010

12/23-31/2010 No New Opinions

Share
Posted in Docket Update | Leave a comment

Sanofi v. Sandoz (Validity of Consent Agreement, Non-precedential, decided December 22, 2010)

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1338.pdf Abstract: Defendants-Appellants Sun Pharmaceutical Indus-tries, Ltd. and Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively “Sun”) appeal the district court’s entry of consent judgment and an injunction enjoining it from the manufacture and sale of generic oxaliplatin. Plaintiffs-Appellees Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Leave a comment

Cost of winning nothing but inventorship- $134,368.28

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1385-1419.pdf and http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1109.pdf Issues(s): Did the District Court err in entering judgment for defendant, finding that a reasonable jury could not find for Shum on state law claims or the remaining co-inventorship claims as to the ’427 and ’724 … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Leave a comment

WiAV does not wave standing because it holds a non-exclusive license

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1266.pdf Issues(s): Did the District Court err in dismissing the counts of WiAV’s complaint concerning the Mindspeed Patents for lack of constitutional standing because several third parties have a limited right to license the patents in WiAV’s alleged exclusive … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | 1 Comment

Merry Christmas to Patent Prosecutors Everywhere from the CAFC! (Microinscribed Gemstones and Inequitable Conduct)

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1251.pdf Issues(s): Did the District Court err in entering a final judgment against Lazare Kaplan International, Inc. (“Lazare”) decreeing the following: (1) the Defendants had not infringed the asserted claims of United States Patents No. 6,476,351 (“the ’351 Patent”) … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Leave a comment

AEROTEL, v. T-MOBILE, (Decided Dec. 20, 2010) (Claim Construction; Non-precedential)

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1179.pdf Abstract: the ’275 patent”). In 2007, Aerotel filed suit against appellee T-Mobile USA, Inc., alleging infringement of claim 23 of the ’275 patent.  After the court issued its claim construction order, the parties stipulated to summary judgment of … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IN RE KRYZPOW (Decided Dec. 20, 2010) (Obviousness; Non-precedential)

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1209.pdf Abstract: The ’358 application concerns an electrode harness used for taking biopotential measurements. The specification states that in one embodiment, the electrical pathways of the harness are shielded from large defibrillator voltages and smaller voltages, both of which … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Software users are not joint infringing “agents” of software developers, but Bill Gates might still disagree.

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1372.pdf Issue(s): Did the District Court err in its finding as a matter of law overturning a jury verdict of infringement by Limelight Networks, Inc. with regard to users acting as joint infringers, as well as Limelight’s cross appeal … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Leave a comment

Manure Spreader Priority Date Case (Non-precedential)

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1304.pdf IN RE MEYER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (Reexamination No. 90/010,007) 2010-1304 Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Decided: December 17, 2010), Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and MOORE, Abstract:  We review the Board’s ultimate determination of obviousness de novo … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Leave a comment

Prometheus Redux (Revisiting the Machine or Transformation Test & Bilski)

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/08-1403.pdf Issue(s): Under the Supreme Court’s vacatur of the case under Bilski, did the district court still err as a matter of law in finding Prometheus’s asserted medical treatment claims to be drawn to non-statutory subject matter? PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Leave a comment