CAFC

Allflex USA v. Avid Identification Systems

This case illustrates a failed attempt to create the appearance of a continuing controversy by contriving arbitrary damages.  Briefly, Allflex originally sued Avid in 2006 for a declaratory judgment that six of Avid’s patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  In the course of lengthily proceedings, the District Court ruled that Avid’s attorneys should be sanctioned for failure...

Read More

Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC

United States Federal Circuit, 02/21/2012 Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, No. 2011-1129

Read More

Patent Found Invalid for Anticipation in Light of Foreign Patent

Under instigating circumstances that appear similar to Robert Kearns’ famous battle against the Big Three automakers over the windshield wiper yet having a decidedly different outcome, the inventor of a side view mirror emergency light recently battled Ford Motor Company before the Federal Circuit after Ford appealed the District Court’s verdict finding the patent valid and awarding the...

Read More

Pharmaceutical Claims Found Obvious

In 1993, based on a priority date of 1986, Tyco Healthcare Group LP and Mallinckrodt, Inc. (collectively, “Tyco”) was issued U.S. Patent No. 5,211,954 (“the ‘954 patent”) directed to the hypnotic sleep-inducing drug temazepam for the treatment of insomnia.[1]  One of the claims for temazepam formulation reads: A hard gelatin capsule containing a temazepam formulation consisting...

Read More

Inequitable Conduct in Patent Litigation

In what in all likelihood will drastically change not only patent litigation but also patent prosecution, the Federal Circuit in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. restated the standard for patent inequitable conduct. This retooling of inequitable conduct will likely reign in the use of the doctrine in patent litigation as a standard trial strategy even when no actual inequitable...

Read More

Altair Engineering, Inc. v. LEDdynamics, Inc.

The case Altair Engineering, Inc. v. LEDdynamics, Inc. centered on the claim construction of Altair’s US Patent No. 7,049,761 (“the ‘761 patent”) which discloses a light tube that utilizes light emitting diodes (“LEDs”).[i]  Specifically, the LEDs were “to serve as a replacement for the typical fluorescent tube lights commonly used in schools and offices.”[ii]  During the...

Read More

Google’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Denied on Appeal

Several years ago, iLOR, LLC, owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,839 (“’839 patent”) for a method “for adding a user selectable function to a hyperlink,” filed suit against Google claiming that the Google Notebook product infringed the ‘839 patent.[i]  According to Claim 26 of the ‘839 patent, the method comprised a “toolbar being displayable based on a location of a cursor in...

Read More

Federal Circuit Reverses BPAI Decision on Obviousness Due to Lack of Substantial Evidence

The Federal Circuit recently decided In re Glatt Air Technologies, Inc., which concerned a previous ruling finding Glatt Air Technologies (“Glatt”) patent obvious in light of prior art.[1]  Glatt developed an improvement upon a coating apparatus used in the coating of pharmaceutical ingredients.[2]  Commonly known as a Wurster coater, the device sprays a liquid coating substance while...

Read More

Federal Circuit Holds Western Union Patents Invalid for Obviousness

  In 2009, in the District Court for the Western District of Texas, a jury found MoneyGram had infringed upon four patents owned by Western Union.[1]  However, upon appeal by MoneyGram, the Federal Circuit recently reversed that decision and found the four patents were invalid for obviousness in view of prior art presented during the jury trial.[2]  The patents, in general, pertained to a...

Read More

Patents and the Experimental Use Doctrine

Decided on November 19, 2010, In re Ceccarelli concerns the on sale bar to patentability.[i]  According to 35 U.S.C. §102(b), which states that “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless…the invention was… in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States” (emphasis added), had Ceccarelli commercially...

Read More

Disclaimer: This website is provided for general information only. It is not intended to be used to solve any particular legal issue. You should always consult with a licensed attorney to handle your legal problems.

show
 
close