Tag Archives: Precedential

“[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

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

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

The Sick and the Breathless: Astrazeneca successfully blocks generic inhalation medication by injunction, but lose their kit claims.

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1381-1424.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in issuing an injunction preventing production of a generic version of their patented medication?  Further was the lower court correct in invalidating the kit claims as being anticipated? ASTRAZENECA LP, Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants … Continue reading

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

Remember… Section 102(g)(2) states that “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . .?” Bueller?

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1161.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in ruling that Honeywell was a prior inventor where it received a report indicating that an experiment of a contractor worked and then successfully repeated the experiment? SOLVAY S.A.,Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, … Continue reading

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

A contract settlement does not necessarily bar subsequent patent litigation

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1053.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in dismissing Baseload Energy, Inc.’s (“Baseload”) request for a declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent No. 6,781,254 (“the ’254 patent”) was invalid and unenforceable? BASELOAD ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRYAN W. ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellee … Continue reading

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

Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Obviousness Case

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1511.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in sustaining the validity of U.S. Patent 5,616,599 drawn to angiotensin receptor blockers (“the ’599 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103? DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LTD., AND DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellees, v. … Continue reading

Share
Posted in Case Briefs | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Spine Implant Patent Case

See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1538.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in granting summary judgment that Medtronic infringes the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,071 (the ’071 patent). Further, was the court’s grant of summary judgment that the asserted claims are not … Continue reading

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