CAFC Archive

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

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 plaintiff nearly $56 million.[1] Read the remainder of this entry »

Many laws are designed with the concept for fairness in mind.  After all, the court of equity was a predecessor to our current legal system. Patent law is no different. Before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the case In re Stepan Company centered on this issue and a patentee’s right to administrative due process.[1]

The Stepan Company was the assignee of a U.S.patent[2] which taught “polyol-based resin blends and the methods of using them to create closed-cell polyurethane and polyisocyanurate-based foam.”[3]  Essentially this patent was used to manufacture thermal insulation installed in the walls of buildings.[4]  Concluding a reexamination proceeding, the patent examiner invalidated the patent’s claims as anticipated under §102(b) or obvious under §103(a).[5]  On appeal, the Board of Patent Appeals and Inferences affirmed the invalidation.  Read the remainder of this entry »

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 essentially of 6 to 8 milligrams of crystalline
temazepam having a surface area of from
0.65 to 1.1 m2/g and 95% of the temazepam
having a particle size of
less than 65 micronsin admixture with a
pharmaceutically acceptable carrier therefor.

The other claim reciting formulation is identical with the exception of teaching a composition containing 7.5 milligrams of crystalline temazepam.[2] Read the remainder of this entry »

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]  Read the remainder of this entry »

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 relation to a hyperlink in a first page in a first window of an application.”[ii]  Read the remainder of this entry »

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 circulating the particles to be coated.   Read the remainder of this entry »

 

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 system of monetary transfers that do not require the completion of forms.[3]  These “formless” transfers were based upon a system developed by a company named Orlandi Valuta in 1997.[4]  Read the remainder of this entry »

Patents and the Experimental Use Doctrine

By Robert H. Bejcek II | Filed in CAFC, On-Sale Bar

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 sold his invention more than one year prior to his patent filing date, he would be barred from registering the patent.[ii] Read the remainder of this entry »

 Recently, the Federal Circuit decided a case concerning the registration of a generic drug by Apotex, Inc. in light of AstraZeneca LP’s registration of their brand-name drug.[i]  Both drugs contain an anti-inflammatory corticosteroid that treats respiratory diseases, namely asthma.[ii]  Of particular interest in this case were the kit claims contained in the two patents Read the remainder of this entry »

Switch to our mobile site