« July 2009 | Main | September 2009 »
August 26, 2009
Compound
Ortho-McNeil sued Teva over
RE39,221, claiming a combination of pain relievers acetaminophen and tramadol. The district court granted summary judgment of obviousness to all
asserted claims, as well as finding one claim, 6, anticipated. Ortho-McNeil
appealed.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:14 PM | Prior Art | Comments (5)
August 22, 2009
Standing
Sky
Technologies sued SAP over an e-trade patent portfolio it had acquired through a
foreclosure and associated contractual conniptions. Because litigation lawyers
argue almost anything regardless of merit, SAP pitched lack of standing and
lost, so it appealed, desperately trying to break the chain of title.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:46 PM | Standing | Comments (7)
August 21, 2009
Ticker
Cardiac
Pacemakers sued St. Jude Medical for infringing
4,407,288, claiming an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD). On second
appeal, while multiple issues get the ticker running quicker, what really pumps
is excluding method claims from Section 271(f).
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:56 PM | Case Law | Comments (5)
August 19, 2009
Disclaimed
RFID
Tracker sued Wal-Mart and others for infringing
6,967,563, claiming an RFID reader. The district court judge construed the
claim to exclude the RFID reader from also being a transmitter, owing to
prosecution disclaimer. Hence, the defendants could not be tagged for
infringement, because their reader included a transmitter. RFID Tracker trekked
to appeal.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:45 PM | Prosecution
August 14, 2009
In the Weeds
Callaway
Golf sued Acushnet over four golf ball patents. Acushnet teed itself up with an
admission of infringement, but tried to whack the asserted claims into the sand
trap of prior art invalidity. The district court judge granted summary judgment
of no anticipation. A trial on obviousness found all but one claim in the
fairway, Callaway seemingly a short pitch to the green. Acushnet appealed, wanting a
mulligan over the anticipation bogie, and an inconsistent jury finding upheld by
the district court. They got it.
Continue reading "In the Weeds"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:28 PM | Prior Art | Comments (2)
August 13, 2009
No Bites
Wedgetail
sued Huddleston for infringing its fishing lure patent
6,857,220 B2 ('B2' being USPTO technical designation for "bait too"). After
claim construction, Wedgetail concluded snagging Huddleston for infringement
could be fishy. "Wedgetail thus filed a motion to dismiss all claims with
prejudice, in which it granted Huddleston a covenant not to sue. Huddleston
opposed solely on the ground that Wedgetail's proposed order of dismissal would
deprive Huddleston of the opportunity to seek attorney fees as the prevailing
party." Case dismissed with prejudice. Huddleston appealed to get its hook into
getting paid attorneys' fees and costs, for the case being "exceptional."
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:10 AM | Case Law
August 10, 2009
Flat Tire
Douglas
J. Shoner had a pneumatic tire design rejected by the PTO over obviousness.
Shoner appealed to the CAFC, which affirmed. Shoner's plea (hardly an argument)
relied upon reading an unstated limitation into his claim from the spec. "The
PTO is required to give claim terms their "broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification," and there is nothing in the specification
that would explicitly limit the air chamber to a particular structure... See
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Absent claim language
carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the
specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the
broader definition.")." (CAFC
2009-1277
non-precedential)
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:46 PM | Prior Art | Comments (5)
August 6, 2009
Patent Contraceptive
The danger
lurking in obviousness is hindsight reasoning. A breakthrough becomes
predictable. In hindsight, you/they/whoever should have seen it coming. Bayer's
oral contraceptive, Yasmin®, had unexpected
performance. The active ingredient, drospirenone, readily degraded in an acidic
environment like the stomach. Grinding it to itty bits, i.e. micronizing,
should have exacerbated the problem. So, logically, you'd coat it, to try to make more
of the drug bio-available. Bayer found out that coating wasn't necessary, and micronizing didn't decimate bioavailability in an acidic environment
nearly as badly as
previously thought. That much was obvious. But only in hindsight.
Continue reading "Patent Contraceptive"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:24 PM | Prior Art | Comments (36)
August 5, 2009
Particular Inequitable Conduct
Exergen
stuck SAAT and others for infringing 5,012,813; 6,047,205 and 6,292,685,
claiming infrared thermometers taking skin readings. A jury awarded over $2.5
million in lost profits. SAAT appealed, getting '205 claims invalidated on
anticipation, and skirting infringement on '813 and '685, thus winning overall.
SAAT failed to prevail on inequitable conduct via Rule 9(b), requiring
"particularity."
Continue reading "Particular Inequitable Conduct"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:57 PM | Inequitable Conduct | Comments (4)
August 4, 2009
Shortchanged
Jorge
Tayler was mistakenly $10 short on his patent maintenance fee payment. The USPTO
later declared his patent dead because of it, in violation of its own rulebook,
the MPEP. "The PTO was arbitrary and capricious in its failure to notify Mr.
Taylor of the minor insufficiencies in his attempted payment of a patent
maintenance fee," so ruled the CAFC (2009-1133).
The patent office does this sort of thing habitually: taking fees and then
unreasonably denying the action for which the fee was paid, as well as refusing
refund.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:05 PM | The Patent Office | Comments (22)
August 2, 2009
Sop
6,310,269
claims a tampon with a solid fiber core denser than radially projecting ribs,
the ribs being narrower at their base at the core than at their distal ends.
McNeil, the patent holder, requested reexamination based upon an uncited
Japanese patent application. The examiner rejected the claims over the prior
art, and the BPAI agreed. McNeil appealed to the CAFC.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 6:41 PM | Prior Art | Comments (34)
prior art search + 
Newsfeed (RSS)