In the most interesting case of the lot, Gemmy Industries and Chrisha Creations battle over 6,644,843, about an inflatable holiday decoration. The district court ruled Gemmy's '843 invalid owing to the one-year on-sale bar. The CAFC (05-1110) overturned. More on this case to come.

Teva appealed a preliminary injunction from Abbott Laboraties (05-1433). The CAFC liked Teva's arguments questioning the validity of the asserted claims, vacating the injunction. The CAFC quoted the eBay decision regarding "equitable discretion." A goodly amount of substance in this decision, so an entry on this case forthcoming.

Honeywell appealed a summary judgment of non-infringement in its assertion against ITT over 5,164,879, but the appeal did no good: the CAFC (05-1407) even finding another ground to affirm the district court's ruling - oops. With Phillips v. AWH as its guide, the CAFC agreed with the district court that the specification had limited the claimed "fuel injection system component" to a fuel filter. And the CAFC added "electrically conductive fibers" as another reason to find non-infringement.

GlaxoSmithKline appealed (v. Apotex) for an en banc rehearing, which was denied (04-1522o). The case related to a product-by-process claim. There were dissents arguing that the current CAFC precedent is confusing. The Supreme Court had declined an appeal by GlaxoSmithKline on June 19. The CAFC ruled in the case on February 24 of this year. Enough said on that case.