Monthly Archives: June 2011

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1513.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in granting a summary judgment invalidating the two claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,211,954 (“the ’954 patent”) for obviousness? TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP AND MALLINCKRODT, INC., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, … Continue reading →

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1525.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in granting ThyssenKrupp’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents 6,892,861 (“the ’861 patent”) and 6,935,465 (“the ’465 patent”) are invalid for failure to meet the definiteness requirement … Continue reading →

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1564.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in holding that defendants willfully infringed the patent, granting a permanent injunction, an accounting, and pre- and post-judgment interest? SPECTRALYTICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORDIS CORPORATION, Defendant-Cross Appellant, and NORMAN NOBLE, INC., Defendant-Cross … Continue reading →

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1230.pdf Issue(s): Was the district court correct in finding that the asserted claims of the the 1997 patents claiming drug-eluting stents are invalid for lack of adequate written description and lack of enablement claiming only “analogues” of rapamycin, and … Continue reading →

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1411.pdf Issue(s): Did the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) err in affirming the examiner’s rejection of certain claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/200,747 (“’747 application”) as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the Board’s … Continue reading →

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1585%2010-1011.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in holding that check-security products sold by defendant Fiserv, Inc., did not infringe Advanced Software’s patent on a method and system for guarding against check fraud and forgery? ADVANCED SOFTWARE DESIGN CORPORATION … Continue reading →