« February 2010 | Main | April 2010 »
March 31, 2010
Score Line
Pressure
Products Medical Supplies invented a valve remover for an introducer, netting
5,125,904 &
5,312,355. Under a rolling claim construction, the patents were found valid
and infringed by the jury, with Pressure Products awarded $1.1 million in damages. Appeal
rolled back the score.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:58 PM | Claim Construction
March 30, 2010
Regulated
Power-One
sued Artesyn for infringing power supply regulator patents, particularly
monitoring point-of-load (POL) regulators. A permanent injunction resulted,
followed by Artesyn's appeal over claim construction, namely, the term "POL regulator",
with a side of obviousness. The CAFC turned both aside.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:38 PM | Claim Construction
March 29, 2010
Definitely Woolly Bully
Enzo sued Applera (and Tropix) for infringing six patents "directed to
various techniques for labeling and detecting nucleic acids, such as DNA and
RNA." Enzo conceded non-infringement of
5,082,830 based upon claim construction. Applera nailed three (5,328,824;
5,449,767;
5,476,928) for indefiniteness and anticipation. The other two washed away as
these four went to appeal. On appeal, "substantially" is found definite as §112
¶2 metes and bounds meets ground round.
Continue reading "Definitely Woolly Bully"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:06 PM | Claim Construction
March 25, 2010
Preamble
"In
July of 1990, Jeffrey and Claudia Griffin conceived of the idea of using a
scratch-off label to mark beverage containers and cups so that attendees of a
gathering or party could keep track of their beverage cups." And so they got
5,154,448. Michael Marrin formed Upardi to make labels, and containers with
labels, under license of '448. "The relationship between Michael Marrin and the
Griffins broke down swiftly, due primarily to differences in opinion about the
appropriate payment obligations under the license." The Griffins terminated the
license. Marrin filed a DJ, and the Griffins countered with complaint of willful
infringement. Summary judgment found the patent invalid as anticipated, based
upon the claim preamble not carrying any weight. The Griffins appealed.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:13 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (46)
March 24, 2010
Enabling Written Description
Ariad
sued Eli Lilly over
6,410,516. Trial found a valid patent infringed. A first appeal "held the
asserted claims invalid for lack of written description." "Ariad petitioned for
rehearing en banc, challenging this court's [CAFC's] interpretation of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing a separate written description
requirement." Reaffirmation.
Continue reading "Enabling Written Description"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:33 AM | § 112 | Comments (7)
March 20, 2010
Debunking In Re Keller
Thanks in large part to KSR, it has become harder to obtain a patent
grant in recent years. It is one
thing when an Examiner makes a ruling based on sound logic and reasoning to
reject an applicant's claims; that is their burden and their duty. But it is
quite another when a rejection is based on nothing more than a poor
misapplication of the law, under the pretense of the MPEP. Of increasing related
consequence is the misapplication of In re Keller 642 F.2d 413 USPQ 871 (CCPA
1981). - A guest post by John M. DeBoer.
Continue reading "Debunking In Re Keller"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:41 PM | Prosecution | Comments (21)
March 10, 2010
i4i Review Redux
Microsoft
has prevailed upon the CAFC to rehear, en banc, only the willfulness portion of
its affirmation of the district court ruling in i4i v. Microsoft. In
other words, the CAFC cut Microsoft a break, probably because the CAFC wants
another bite at cleaning up the willfulness standard. A revised CAFC ruling was
issued today that takes out the sentence: "Microsoft does not challenge the jury
instructions on willfulness or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
jury's willfulness finding," and adds a section on willfulness to its revised
ruling.
Continue reading "i4i Review Redux"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 5:54 PM | Infringement | Comments (1)
March 9, 2010
Less Than Best Mode
The
American arm of Japan's Ajinomoto complained to the ITC to stop foreign imports
of dietary supplement lysine, under the aegis of
5,827,698 and
6,040,160. The snag was that their patent applications didn't actually
disclose their production techniques. That cost them the patents for failing to
meet best mode, and inequitable conduct for knowingly doing so.
Continue reading "Less Than Best Mode"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:18 PM | § 112 | Comments (8)
March 7, 2010
Whole Wallet
Taking
a break from the frigid east Washington winter, CAFC Judge Rader has been
marshalling in Marshall. Rader's adjudicating an East Texas patent brawl between
IP Innovation and Linux vendors Red Hat and Novell. Judge Rader takes no wooden
nickels as the Linux twins sought to toss IPI's damages expert as a Daubert
deuce. Herein the good Judge smokes one.
Continue reading "Whole Wallet"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:47 PM | Damages | Comments (2)
March 5, 2010
Cool Analogy
5,955,955
claims a computer drive bay fan, meant to cool the hard drives right in their
own living room. '955 owner Comaper sued Antec for infringement. Trial found
Antec willfully infringing some claims. Some claims were obvious to the jury,
others validly novel. Appeal found that "irreconcilably inconsistent." The CAFC
resolution was to define analogous art as either "from the same field of
endeavor," or "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved." Upon that the CAFC created its own reconcilable inconsistency.
Continue reading "Cool Analogy"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:10 PM | Prior Art | Comments (6)
March 3, 2010
Momentos
Media
Technologies sued Upper Deck for infringing two memorabilia patents:
5,803,501 &
6,142,532. After a trip to the CAFC on district court summary judgment over
res judicata (reversed), trial court proceedings were stayed pending
reexamination. Both patents made it through reexam unscathed. Then, based on
claim construction, Upper Deck got the upper hand by summary judgment over
obviousness.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:44 PM | Prior Art | Comments (14)
prior art search + 
Newsfeed (RSS)