Monthly Archives: December 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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →