In ResQNet.Com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s (“District Court”) ruling that Lansa had infringed ResQNet.Com’s (“ResQNet”) patents; vacated and remanded the District Court’s damages award; and reversed the District Court’s Rule 11 sanction against ResQNet. Continue Reading
In Wyeth and Elan Pharma v. Under Sec. of Commerce for Intellectual Property, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently affirmed the decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia to grant summary judgment that plaintiffs Wyeth and Elan Pharma (“Wyeth”) were entitled to extended patent term adjustments under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) due to the Patent Office’s delay in prosecuting their applications. Continue Reading
In Source Search Technologies v. LendingTree, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated the United States District Court of New Jersey’s grant of summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,758,328 (“the ’328 patent”), a system for matching buyers and vendors over a network like the internet, was infringed but invalid. The CAFC affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the findings that the claims were not indefinite and that LendingTree’s website offered “goods and services” as contemplated by the ’328 patent but remanded the case for further fact finding on the infringement and validity issues. Continue Reading
In Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld a jury verdict of invalidity even though the district court had given erroneous jury instructions where the error was harmless because the claims were obvious. Therasense and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) claimed that Becton, Dickinson & Company and Nova Biomedical Corp. (BD/Nova) infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,628,890 (the ’890 patent), which claimed electrochemical sensors for measuring glucose levels in blood. Continue Reading
In Unicrop Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010 FC 61), the Federal Court (FC) upheld the Commissioner of Patents’ decision finding Canadian Patent Application No. 2,531,185 (the ’185 Application) abandoned. The FC confirmed that only the “authorized correspondent” could act on behalf of the applicant to pay fees and request reinstatement. The FC also held that equitable relief was not available where granting it would be contrary to statutory requirements. Continue Reading
In Curb v. Smart & Biggar, the applicant — a well known American record producer — successfully petitioned the Federal Court to set aside the Registrar’s decision to strike certain wares and services from his registration of the mark CURB RECORDS. The Court found that the additional evidence the applicant had filed on appeal was sufficient to establish use for the purposes of § 45 of the Trade-marks Act (the “Act“). In particular, the Court held that under the circumstances, evidence that the applicant’s multimedia website was accessible from Canada was sufficient to show use with respect to the provision of “entertainment services provided by pre-recorded music,” even though the site was hosted abroad. However, the Court disregarded evidence that the applicant had sold t-shirts and caps bearing the mark in Canada “and/or” the United States for lack of specificity, affirming the Registrar’s decision to strike those wares from the applicant’s registration. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
