March 18, 2013
Gamey
In
Aristocrat v. International Game (CAFC
2010-1426), there was no direct infringement of gaming machine method claims
because the accused infringer didn't control a player's actions. Bad claims
drafting was the root problem here. Many prosecutors don't understand how claims
are treated in litigation, as in this instance. On the finer point of indirect
infringement, the CAFC noted inattention all around: "neither the parties, nor
the district court in its summary judgment order, expend significant time on the
question of indirect or induced infringement." The district court found
non-infringement based upon outdated case law. (The CAFC and SCOTUS
substantially change patent law willy-nilly on an irregular basis.) Current law
of indirect infringement, under the Akamai precedent, is based upon the
notion of a hypothetical "single party would be liable as a direct infringer."
With all the facts and law before it, but too inattentive to do its job
properly, the CAFC remanded for the district court to figure it out, while
giving the law firms involved another welcome boost for more fees to their
clients.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:13 PM | Infringement
March 6, 2013
Inequitable Estoppel
Bumper Boy asserted animal collar patents that the district court denied on non-infringement against Radio Shack via equitable estoppel, as Bumper Boy wrote a threatening letter, then did nothing for years. On appeal (CAFC 2012-1233), a 2-1 decision highlighted the often capricious court interpretation of the law in this country. A CAFC panel majority: 1) found that Bumper Boy mysteriously eluded equitable estoppel on a CIP even though "these claims do not draw on any new matter"; 2) completely ignored Radio Shack's invalidity arguments, contrary to law (ostensibly for not filing a cross-appeal, when it wasn't necessary. As the dissent pointed out: "the prevailing party need not file a cross-appeal in order to defend a judgment in its favor on any ground that is supported by the record.") Dissenting Judge Newman was rightly disgusted with colleagues Moore and Reyna.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:25 PM | Infringement
Inducing Move
In Move v. Real Estate Alliance (CAFC 2012-1342), Move duped the district court by having the judge whitewash non-infringement. On appeal, a CAFC panel found "the district court failed to conduct an indirect infringement analysis," as Move may have induced infringement: "knew of the asserted patent and performed or knowingly induced the performance of the steps of the claimed methods, and that all of those steps were in fact performed." Under the controversial Akamai precedent, "liability under § 271(b) may arise when the steps of a method claim are performed by more than one entity, provided that the other requirements for inducement are met."
Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:59 PM | Infringement
February 21, 2013
Function-Way-Result
Brilliant Instruments filed a declaratory judgment action against GuideTech over microprocessor timing error detection circuits (e.g., 6,181,649). Brilliant prevailed before the district court, which found non-infringement. GuideTech appealed, arguing that the district court got it wrong in considering the doctrine of equivalents.
Continue reading "Function-Way-Result"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:52 AM | Infringement
September 5, 2012
Inducing Insanity
Last week, in Akamai
Technologies v.
Limelight Networks (CAFC 2009-1372),
a CAFC en banc 6-5 divided court fabricated
its own law of induced infringement; which got ignored a few days later, as the court again capriciously followed its bias of the moment.
Continue reading "Inducing Insanity"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:48 AM | Infringement
August 26, 2011
Butted
For years, Star Scientific has been trying to smoke R.J. Reynolds Tobacco for
infringing its tobacco curing patents:
6,202,649 &
6,425,401, but couldn't get the match to strike. Down-and-dirty litigation
tactics tarnished Star.
As usual, the corporate giant won again, as the CAFC displayed divisions within.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:07 PM | § 112
July 21, 2011
Limitation Conjugation
Conjugated
estrogens are a mixture used to treat post-menopausal hot flashes by
artificially ramping lost hormonal production. For that benefit runs a greater
risk of breast cancer, heart attack, or stroke. Duramed asserted
5,908,638 against Paddock Labs to treat its post-grant ANDA, the generic
replacement syndrome that afflicts profitable patented drugs. Paddock eluded
infringement because of prosecution estoppel over the claimed moisture barrier
coating on the pill - what's in the prior art is foreseeable. Here is a backhand
of Obzilla.
Continue reading "Limitation Conjugation"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:48 PM | Infringement
June 28, 2011
Dumbells
Serious
body builders take a variety of supplements, not because they are serious about
their health, but because they are serious about their ego. Brains and brawn
seldom mix. And so it seems with at least one bodybuilder supplement maker.
Creative Compounds filed a DJ against competitor Starmark Laboratories over
7,109,373. Starmark shot back, asserting infringement, and the comeuppance
of Creative's
7,129,273 as invalid. Starmark found favor at district court: "summary
judgment on all counts and denied Creative's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction." The appeals court backed the district court on everything but
subject matter jurisdiction. But the punch of that was moot, because Creative's
'273 was effectively invalidated, and so can never be successfully
asserted.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:03 PM | Prior Art
June 27, 2011
Quality Control
American
Calcar (ACI) sued Honda for infringing 15 car computer patents. The number of
patents asserted hardly made up for spotty quality. Only one was found valid
and infringed at district court. Nine were appealed over validity, infringement,
and inequitable conduct. The whiff of impropriety by ACI, while not legal
damnation, was enough to bias the courts, and, in the end, let Honda drive on,
patent toll free.
Continue reading "Quality Control"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 5:56 PM | Infringement
June 2, 2011
Bad Check
Advanced
Software sued competitor Fiserv for infringing a check fraud and forgery patent
reliant upon encryption,
6,792,110 found not infringed in summary
judgment. On appeal, lots of garbage arguments by freewheeling
litigators, typical of every litigation. The
stunner is the CAFC descending into gobbledygook guidance, leaving
claim construction an encrypted process for district courts. Herein, a limiting
preamble whose limitations can be ignored for determining infringement. The CAFC
continues to astonish with legal turbidity.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:24 PM | Infringement
May 31, 2011
Inducing
SEB
had commercial success with an electrical deep fryer that it patented:
4,995,312. Sunbeam asked Pentalpha, owned by Global-Tech Appliances, "to
supply Sunbeam with deep fryers meeting certain specifications. Pentalpha
purchased an SEB fryer that was made for sale in a foreign market and thus
lacked U. S. patent markings, copied all but the fryer's cosmetic features, and
retained an attorney to conduct a right-to-use study without telling him it had
copied directly from SEB's design. Failing to locate SEB's patent, the attorney
issued an opinion letter stating that Pentalpha's deep fryer did not infringe
any of the patents that he had found. Pentalpha then started selling its fryers
to Sunbeam, which resold them in this country under its own trademarks at a
price that undercut SEB's."
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:00 AM | Infringement
May 19, 2011
Going Blind
Allergan
sued Apotex and Exela for infringing
5,424,078 and related patents, claiming eye drops to treat glaucoma. The
litigations were prompted by the would-be infringers exposing their intentions
by filing ANDAs. The generic rascals were routed, failing to invalidate, and
failing to skirt infringement. Apotex appealed obviousness, and knocked down
'078 on appeal, but not its relations. Lousy lawyering comes to fore as
factoring in, as did, for Exela, clever counsel.
Continue reading "Going Blind"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:12 PM | Prior Art
April 24, 2011
Instant Squealing
Claim construction is a legal greased pig: hard to tackle. Grabbing it
invariably results in a lot of squealing. Creative Internet Advertising sued
Yahoo! over
6,205,432, which claims an instant squealing program. The litigation had lots of claim construction squealing about antecedent basis and sequence. A jury found '432 infringed
and not invalid. "The district court enhanced the jury's damages award and
ordered an ongoing royalty despite Yahoo!'s efforts to design around the
patent." Yahoo! squeals. Again. And yet more squealing on appeal: a CAFC panel judge
joins in.
Continue reading "Instant Squealing"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:45 PM | Claim Construction
April 20, 2011
Busted
TiVo bludgeoned EchoStar with
6,233,389, winning at trial in 2006 and on appeal in 2008. EchoStar wouldn't
settle, and TiVo got a temporary injunction. EchoStar's supposed workaround "was
not more than colorably different from the infringing software, and did continue
to infringe the software claims." The district court, then an appeals panel,
found contempt. The CAFC agreed to hear the issue en banc, to "clarify the
standards governing contempt proceedings in patent infringement cases."
With a roaring dissent, clarification was awfully noisy.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 7:08 PM | Case Law
April 12, 2011
No Control
6,757,898
claims a networked medical database, over which McKesson sued Epic Systems. Epic licenses the accused product, MyChart, to healthcare providers. Epic's second summary judgment motion of non-infringement convinced the district court judge, after the first failed because the judge wanted a better feel for the facts. The appeals court only wanted a better feel of control.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:41 PM | Infringement
March 26, 2011
Gamey
Innovention Toys successfully sued MGA Entertainment,Wal-Mart Stores, and
Toys "R" Us for infringing
7,264,242, "which claims a chess-like, light-reflecting board game." The win
at district court was, of course, appealed. The CAFC panel found that the
district court strayed from the path in determining nonobviousness, and remanded.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:00 PM | Prior Art
March 21, 2011
Pile Driver
5,355,964
claims a pile driver. In an obscure litigation strategy, owner American
Piledriving Equipment drove infringement suits around: in 7 different districts.
Each had different claim constructions. Two were on appeal: "Eastern District of
Virginia and the Northern District of California each granted summary judgment
of noninfringement in favor of their respective defendants, despite adopting
different constructions of two key claim terms." Another case where the CAFC
cleans up from random lawyering, and a modest miss by a district court.
Continue reading "Pile Driver"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:09 PM | Claim Construction
February 19, 2011
Bad Connection
Ronald A. Katz sued a crop of companies over his call processing patent portfolio in a variety of venues. Consolidation led to loss at district court. For the umpteenth time, a CAFC ruling demonstrates the random competence of all involved before the appeals panel. Patent litigation is a crap shoot because a lot of what comes out of lawyers, whether on the bench or belting it out, is crap. It helps when patent claims are largely crap, which is not at all unusual either. Once again, the CAFC proves its worth in sorting it all out.
Continue reading "Bad Connection"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 3:32 PM | § 112
January 24, 2011
Tipsy
5,220,919
claims a booze detector which sniffs the air near the skin of the lubricated
one. Owner AMS sued four for tippling infringement. The district court, a little
tipsy in its claim construction, nonetheless walked a straight line to
noninfringement. The appeals court sobered things up.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:01 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (1)
January 23, 2011
Use
5,287,270
claims a computerized billing system, ostensibly for phone calls. Who uses it?
Patent owner Centillion thought Qwest did, so it sued for infringement. The
district court summarily found otherwise, because "no single party practices all
of the limitations of the asserted claims." A phone user used the front end,
while Qwest handled the back end. Appeal dialed it in differently.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:42 PM | Infringement | Comments (2)
January 4, 2011
Locking Up Damages
Uniloc
sued Microsoft over its product activation software, infringing Uniloc's
5,490,216. Uniloc convinced a jury of willful infringement, to the tune of
$388 million, plus $86 million in interest. Microsoft then swayed the district
court judge to pitch the jury verdict. The inevitable appeal furthered court
reform of the patent laws, particularly damages methodology. Goldscheider and
his dedicated flock of followers are belatedly shoved into oblivion, and the
whole hog market rule is butchered again.
Continue reading "Locking Up Damages"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:08 PM | Damages | Comments (4)
December 21, 2010
Chipper
Tessera
designs semiconductors, and thereby manufactures patent litigations. This
episode emanates from the ITC, in an action against several parties: Spansion,
Freescale, ATI, STMicro, and Qualcomm. Motorola settled.
5,852,326 and
6,433,419, going to a particular semiconductor packaging, were asserted.
After typical bureaucratic discord, the ITC found the patents valid and
infringed. The inevitable CAFC appeal inevitably went to claim construction,
infringement, and validity.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:36 PM | ITC
December 20, 2010
Bollocks to the Dollops
Akamai
Technologies, with MIT riding shotgun, asserted:
6,108,703;
6,553,413; &
7,103,645 against Limelight Networks. The patents generally claim delivering
content dollops that go along with serving a web page. The district court judge
overturned the jury's finding of joint infringement of the asserted '703 claims. That
was one for appeal by Akamai, along with claim construction tiffs that led to
non-infringement on the other patents. Joint infringement requires that the
major infringer controls the minor infringer (an agent that is "contractually
obliged"), or it'll blow the joint.
Continue reading "Bollocks to the Dollops"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:49 PM | Infringement
November 5, 2010
Secured
Talk about a plaintiff's dream. Finjin sued Secure Computing and Webwasher
for infringing anti-malware scanning software patents
6,092,194;
6,804,780; and
7,058,822. Defendants counterclaimed
6,357,010 and
7,185,361. "A jury found that
none of the patents was invalid, that Finjan did not infringe Defendants'
patents, and that Defendants willfully infringed all asserted claims of Finjan's
patents. The district court awarded damages to Finjan, enhanced the award under
35 U.S.C. § 284, and imposed a permanent injunction against Defendants." Appeal
only slightly tarnished the victory.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:38 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (12)
October 13, 2010
The Invention Zone
6,730,817
claims a process for making a refrigerant gas that won't deplete atmospheric
ozone and turn Earth into more of a baking oven than humans are busy otherwise
doing. Owner Solvay sued Honeywell for infringing '817. For their pains, Solvay
had some asserted claims found infringed, but "invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
102(g)(2) because Honeywell was a prior inventor." Appeal got the invalidity
ozone depleted from district court summary judgment.
Continue reading "The Invention Zone"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:14 PM | Prior Art | Comments (2)
September 21, 2010
Shallow End of the Pool
Philips, Fujitsu, and LG Electronics are in a patent pool that claims
wireless communication protocol standards. Netgear was the target of
their "licensing" campaign. For summary judgment, "the plaintiffs argued that by
simply complying with the standard, Netgear necessarily infringed the asserted
claims." The district court found the hand-waving assertion of infringement
off-putting, and denied the motion. On to appeal.
Continue reading "Shallow End of the Pool"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 3:06 PM | Infringement
September 13, 2010
Preamble Ablation
6,986,764
claims "photoselective vaporization of tissue," though that phrase appears only
in the preamble. A district court judge found the patent not infringed because
the accused product didn't do it. A CAFC majority reversed, figuring the
preamble was not a limitation. Judge DYK dissented, suggesting that such claim
ablation is a violation.
Continue reading "Preamble Ablation"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:48 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (3)
September 10, 2010
Backbreaker Broken
Spine
Solutions, Inc. (SSI) sued Medtronic for infringing
6,936,071, which claims a spinal implant, "used to replace discs between
vertebrae in the spinal column that have degenerated or become diseased."
Summary judgment of infringement for claims 1 and 2, and dismissal of "all of
Medtronic's 35 U.S.C. § 112 defenses" led to stipulated capitulation by
Medtronic, setting up a trial on damages and obviousness. SSI was going for lost
profits even though it didn't sell or make any device covered by '071. But SSI's
sister companies did. SSI was allowed to amend its complaint to include them.
The jury found '071 not invalid, and willfully infringed, to the $5.7 million in
lost profits, and an 18% reasonable royalty on $9.1 million in infringing sales.
Whereupon the district court doubled the damages and awarded attorneys fees.
Adding insult to injury, the court entered a permanent injunction. All that left
Medtronic a lot to appeal. And some of it was appealing to the CAFC.
Continue reading "Backbreaker Broken"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:32 PM | Case Law | Comments (1)
September 6, 2010
Solo
Even
for an ace, patent litigation is a team sport. It's one thing if your scummy
contingency lawyers breach contract and walk away, for you to soldier on (more
on that later). But to sue a major corporation pro se - foolhardy becomes
an understatement. Case in point: Roger Marx Desenberg sued Google for
infringing
7,139,732. Desenberg couldn't even reach first base: the district court
"dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted."
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:00 PM | Infringement | Comments (9)
August 20, 2010
Deep Rig
Transocean
Offshore Deepwater Drilling innovates so humans can drive around on the cheap
until they pollute themselves out of existence. And, as anything that lives in the Gulf of Mexico would tell you (if it could talk),
pollution begins at the wellhead. Transocean tried drilling rival Maersk for infringing
6,047,781,
6,068,069, and
6,085,851, in South Texas, where
they love oil like cattle love grazing. But apparently not those patents, because the district court held
the asserted claims invalid, not infringed, and Maersk not acting willfully.
Transocean had to pitch its bit to the CAFC.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:35 PM | Prior Art
August 14, 2010
Plugged
Dr.
Gregory W. Baran invented a biopsy sampling needle with spring-loaded action to
pull a plug from a corpse. This innovation netted the doctor
5,025,797 and CIP
5,400,798. Dr. Baran decided to plug Medical Device Technologies, AMT
Svergie AB and Gedon AB for infringement. Claim construction of "detachable" and
"releasably" forced Dr. Baran to stipulate noninfringement for '798 asserted
claims. '797 went down to noninfringement in summary judgment. The only thing
left of Dr. Baran's case after appeal was an autopsy of lousy
lawyering by the plaintiff.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:10 PM | Claim Construction
August 11, 2010
Tracking & Waiving
Enovsys
sued Sprint Nextel for infringing
5,918,159 and
6,560,461, which claim tracking mobile phones. Undisputed claim construction
led to disputed infringement. "After a nine-day trial, the jury found Sprint
Nextel infringed both patents and awarded approximately $2.78 million in
damages." Sprint Nextel appealed.
Continue reading "Tracking & Waiving"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:30 PM | Infringement
August 9, 2010
Not A Golden Hour
Golden
Hour Data Systems sued emsCharts and Softtech for infringing
6,117,073. '073 claims integration of medical dispatch, clinical services,
and billing. Trial went Golden Hour's way, but the district court afterward held
JMOL no joint infringement of claims, and found '073 unenforceable due to
inequitable conduct. Golden Hour appealed. Herein, incredible case law
developments: the inequitable conduct mulligan; and joint infringement only by
proven puppeteering. And another case where "the single most reasonable
inference" is hamstrung.
Continue reading "Not A Golden Hour"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:14 PM | Infringement | Comments (1)
August 5, 2010
Equivalent Spit
Chronic
excessive throat mucus is a wage of sin: bad diet, pudgy lifestyle. Drug
companies make their wages off such sin. "Guaifenesin is an expectorant used to
thin, loosen, and help expel mucus that causes congestion. It was first approved
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1952." But it's still patented in
various forms.
6,372,252 claims sustained release, as if that were gee-whiz chemistry.
Adams sued Perrigo after Perrigo filed an ANDA for an extended mucus reducer.
Herein, the significance of equivalence.
Continue reading "Equivalent Spit"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:06 PM | Claim Construction
July 29, 2010
Plunger
Becton
tried to stick Tyco with infringing syringe patent
5,348,544.
It did. But Tyco got the district court judge to grant a new trial on
infringement, because Becton changed its infringement theory at trial. Tyco lost
the second trial. Tyco appealed. The CAFC plunged into contentious claim
construction.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 5:48 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (6)
July 19, 2010
Insecure
Paradox
Security Systems sued ADT and other home security companies for infringing
RE39,406, which claims a telephone line coupler circuit. Paradox's expert
was waylaid by defendants for not explaining how the accused products met a
means-plus-function limitation. The district court judge ruled non-infringement
as a matter of law. Appeal found the same short circuit.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 7:05 PM | Infringement
June 23, 2010
Even If
"An
annuity is a contract that guarantees the payment of money to an annuitant upon
certain intervals. Annuities are typically used to provide individuals with
long-term economic protection against the risk of outliving their assets."
7,089,201, owned by Lincoln National Life Insurance Company claims
"computerized methods for administering variable annuity plans,"
particularly, paying out "even if the account value is exhausted." Nervy
competitor Transamerica filed a DJ.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:52 AM | Infringement
June 16, 2010
Replication Error
Wordtech
sued a school district in California, and Integrated Networks Solutions (INSC),
along with four INSC employees, for infringing CD copier patents
6,141,298;
6,532,198; and
6,822,932. The school district settled. Only after that did INSC attempt to
allege invalidity, a motion denied by the district court. Jury trial "found that
all defendants infringed all three patents willfully. After trial, the district
court found the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarded treble
damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and costs to Wordtech." The only appeal
challenge was for the liability verdicts against two INSC employees.
Continue reading "Replication Error"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:11 AM | Infringement
June 15, 2010
Unreleased
Database
monolith Oracle tried to put a DJ hurt on
5,894,554 as invalid and/or unenforceable. Patent owner epicRealm
counterclaimed infringement, then passed the torch to Parallel Networks to carry
on. '554 goes to "efficiently managing dynamic web page requests. Specifically,
the claimed invention seeks to lighten a web server's processing load by
allowing it to off-load dynamic web page requests to one or more page servers."
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:12 PM | Infringement
June 4, 2010
Animated
Beginning
its enforcement campaign with the beginning of the alphabet, Silicon Graphics
sued ATI and AMD, ultimately for infringing
6,650,327, which claims pipelined floating point graphics calculations. Two
other patents had been asserted, but summary judgment in favor of defendants
wiped the litigation of those. Summary judgment of non-infringement, as well as
a district court finding that a Microsoft license covered part of the action,
wiped '327's assertion. But the counterclaim case proceeded to trial, where the
patent was found not invalid. Then, naturally, appeal from both sides. Besides
claim construction and infringement, a look herein at exhausting defenses and
counterclaims.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:06 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (9)
April 29, 2010
Dun In
Judson A. Bradford had some ideas for collapsible shipping containers. So he
patented.
5,725,119 came first. Then
6,230,916, a divisional of '119.
6,540,096 was a CIP of '916. Enforcement went nowhere: noninfringement. But
the CAFC revived Bradford's prospects owing to a too-narrow claim construction.
Of particular interest in this case is that Bradford damned himself in the '096
CIP having benefit of the earlier '119 parent prior date.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 3:09 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (1)
April 12, 2010
Located
Global
Locate took SiRF and others to the ITC to stop the defendants from importing
products infringing six of its GPS patents, which claim methods for improving
signal reception. Global Locate prevailed. The defendants appealed. At issue
were standing, infringement, and whether GPS-based methods were patentable
subject matter under the Bilski standard.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:10 PM | Standing
April 10, 2010
Outbid
Close-call patent litigation cases
are not unusual, but many are exercises in
denial. In this episode, Bid for Position bid for doggedness over
7,225,151, which claims a method for conducting a continuous auction. Having lost on non-infringement
by a clear-cut claim construction, appeal makes Bid's grasping lawyers look
doggedly witless. The not-so-thin line between advocacy and asininity is
traversed again.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 6:02 PM | Claim Construction
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)
February 27, 2010
Static
Trading
Technologies sued eSpeed and Ecco for infringing
6,772,132 &
6,766,304, which go to displaying "static price levels" on a computerized
board for commodity trading. One service product infringed, but others literally did not, and applying the
doctrine of equivalents was proscribed. Defenses to
indefiniteness and inequitable conduct went nowhere, as did on-sale bar (§
102(b)) based on a provisional priority date. Affirmation on appeal toted up
dynamic case law quotes, not on sale, but ones that litigators must buy.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:59 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (3)
February 7, 2010
Deep Fryer
SEB
sued Montgomery Ward and others for infringing
4,995,312 by selling a cheap deep fryer manufactured by Pentalpha. Speedy
justice meant that getting to trial took a mere seven years, whereupon a jury
found willful infringement, awarding $4.65 million in damages, which the
district court judge hence cut by $2 million. The district court had awarded
enhanced damages and attorneys' fees to SEB, but then snatched them back in
light of the 2007 CAFC
Seagate ruling that willfully gutted willfulness. Herein, a tale of
disingenuity, and an appeal decision greasing understanding of inducing
infringement.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:29 PM | Infringement | Comments (1)
January 15, 2010
Going Up
5,689,094
claims personal recognition that tells an elevator where to go. Patent owner
Schindler Elevator tried to get a lift over Otis Elevator, but Otis got a
summary judgment of noninfringement by construction of claim, which was a shame,
because, on appeal, the district court took the blame. The CAFC told the
district court where to go, while leaving the final destination indefinite.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:32 PM | Claim Construction
January 9, 2010
Unfried Chicken
Restaurant
Technologies (RTI) sued Jersey Shore Chicken for infringing
5,249,511, which claims a system for supplying and disposing of cooking oil
in restaurant fryers. If RTI had a good prosecutor, the patent wouldn't have
read like a product manual, with too few embodiments, especially for
means-plus-function claims. Herein, RTI gets fried pursuing denial to a bitter
end.
Continue reading "Unfried Chicken"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:12 PM | Infringement
December 22, 2009
Unpreserved
i4i sued Microsoft for a pissant feature in Word: editing custom XML.
But to i4i's business, the feature was puissant. A seven-day trial found
Microsoft willfully infringing a valid patent, with a jury award of $200
million. "Although statutorily authorized to triple the jury's damages award
because of Microsoft's willful infringement, the district court awarded only $40
million in additional damages. It also granted i4i's motion for a permanent
injunction." The inevitable appeal, widely expected to go more Microsoft's way
than not, did not. Procedural fumbling by supposedly the best lawyers money can
buy sold Microsoft short. Herein, CAFC case law heavy on burden and sufficiency,
in a case practically covering the gauntlet of patent enforcement.
Continue reading "Unpreserved"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:57 PM | Case Law | Comments (1)
December 16, 2009
Expert?
Experts
are the litigation equivalent of hired guns. They are only as good as the
guidance given by the attorneys providing their payday on what bullets to shoot
where. A case in point is Intellectual Science and Technology v. Sony.
5,748,575, one of five patents left standing on appeal, claims concurrent
reading of computer CDs. The district court pitched the case on summary judgment
for non-infringement after the plaintiff's expert failed to convince, as his declaration
was "merely conclusory." The appeals court gave a lesson in how an expert ought to spurt.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:36 AM | Infringement | Comments (1)
December 13, 2009
So Unlike Concrete
In
an extremely messy patent case involving claim construction (and correction),
noninfringement, invalidity, laches, indefiniteness, trade secrets, and topped
with several business torts, Ultimax Cement had its quick-set concrete patents
crumble by a sledgehammer summary judgment at district court, and so Ultimax
sought repair at the CAFC. The foundation of the patent problem: lack of careful
proofreading by the prosecutor.
Continue reading "So Unlike Concrete"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:04 AM | Claim Construction | Comments (3)
December 8, 2009
Actually Factual
Source
Search Technologies (SST) sued LendingTree over
5,758,328, which claims an online vending system employing request for quote
(RFQ) posting to select potential vendors, to which the vendors respond. "The
'328 patent claims to solve the "too much" or "too little" information problem
commonly associated with running searches over a network or system." The
asserted claims were found infringed but obvious, thus invalid, in summary
judgment. The appeal, narrowed to a single claim (14), let the CAFC panel
reiterate its caution to district courts: be not hasty in granting summary
judgment if the scent of "genuine issues of material fact" is in the air.
Continue reading "Actually Factual"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 5:26 PM | Infringement | Comments (1)
September 20, 2006
On the Rise
Ms.
Yoon Ja Kim was in the know about the dough, and so we go blow to blow to show
ConAgra, accused, but not rising like baking bread to infringement.
Continue reading "On the Rise"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:16 PM | Claim Construction
prior art search + 
Newsfeed (RSS)