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 »
Claim Construction Archive
Altair Engineering, Inc. v. LEDdynamics, Inc.
By Robert H. Bejcek II | Filed in CAFC, Claim Construction, IP Litigation, Patent, Prosecution HistorySiemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc.
By Dominic A. Frisina JD, MA | Filed in Claim Construction, Doctrine of Equivalents, IP LitigationSiemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. manufactures positron emission tomography (PET) medical imaging devices, and uses scintillation crystals known by their chemical name as cerium-activated lutetium oxyorthosilicate, i.e. LSO.[1] Saint-Gobain sold another kind of scintillation crystal (LYSO) to Philips Medical Systems, which manufactures competing PET scanners.[2] In April of 2007, Siemens sued Saint-Gobain for infringement of their U.S. Patent No. 4,958,080 (the ‘080 patent) which claimed a “detector comprising a scintillator composed of a transparent single crystal of cerium-activated lutetium oxyorthosilicate,” i.e. LSO.[3] According to Siemens, Saint-Gobain’s infringement is due to its manufacturing of cerium-doped lutetium yttrium orthosilicate (LYSO). Read the remainder of this entry »
Google’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Denied on Appeal
By Robert H. Bejcek II | Filed in CAFC, Claim Construction, Damages, IP Litigation, Patent LitigationSeveral 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 »
Federal Circuit Reverses BPAI Decision on Obviousness Due to Lack of Substantial Evidence
By Robert H. Bejcek II | Filed in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), CAFC, Claim Construction, IP Litigation, ObviousnessThe 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 »
Federal Circuit Makes Determination On Floating Point Computer Graphics Patent
By Robert H. Bejcek II | Filed in CAFC, Claim Construction, IP Litigation, PatentOn June 4th, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided a computer hardware and method patent case between Silicon Graphics (“SGI”) and ATI Technologies (“ATI”).[1] The technology at issue comprised computer graphics hardware and methods of the type used to create movies such as Toy Story or Wall-E.[2] At the District Court, plaintiff SGI alleged that defendant ATI infringed three of its patents, but after litigation, only U.S. Patent No. 6,650,327 (the “327 patent”) was raised on appeal. Due to the District Court’s claim construction and an interpretation of a license agreement that SGI had with Microsoft Corp., no genuine dispute of facts on infringement was found, and summary judgment was granted to ATI.[3] However, a jury trial was then held to determine the validity of the ‘327 patent.[4] ATI made several post-trial motions. Denial of those motions was appealed by ATI. SGI cross-appealed the claim construction and the interpretation of the Microsoft license agreement.[5] The Appeals Court vacated two of the three claim constructions in question as well as the Microsoft license interpretation, but affirmed with respect to all other issues including ATI’s post-trial motions.[6]
