Posts from ‘United States: Patents’
In Comparer Corp. v. Antec, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the District Court’s claim construction but vacated the jury’s verdicts on obviousness as irreconcilably inconsistent, remanding the case for a new trial on invalidity. Comaper had brought suit against Antec alleging willful infringement of multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,955,955, a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer. The jury found willful infringement of claims 1, 2, 7, 12, and 13, and that independent claims 1 and 12 were not invalid as obvious. However, the jury also found that dependent claims 2, 7, and 13 were obvious. Because the District Court did not grant a new trial based on the irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts the CAFC vacated the verdict and remanded. Continue Reading
In SiRF Technology, Inc v. International Trade Commission and Broadcom, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the United States International Trade Commission’s (“Commission”) ruling that (1) Broadcom Corporation and Global Locate, Inc. (collectively, “Global Locate”) had standing to sue SiRF Technology, Inc., E-TEN Information Systems Co., Ltd., Pharos Science & Applications, Inc., MiTAC International Corp., and Mio Technology Limited, USA (collectively, “SiRF”); (2) SiRF infringed Global Locate’s patents; and (3) Global Locate’s patents claimed patentable subject matter. Continue Reading
In Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed a jury verdict from a District Court that found Microsoft had infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,906,700 (“the ’700 patent”), owned by Anascape. The patent for a hand-operated controller used for video games was a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 6,222,525 (“the ’525 patent”) filed in 2000, and the infringed patent relied on the 1996 filing date of the parent ’525 patent to remain valid in light of intervening prior art sold by Sony in 1998. The CAFC held that the written description of the ’525 patent did not contemplate the broader scope claimed in the ’700 patent and therefore the claims in the ’700 patent were invalid. Continue Reading
In Ariad Pharmaceutical v. Eli Lilly, 2008-1248, the en banc Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a 9-2 decision reaffirmed the existence of an independent written description requirement, separate from enablement, in 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 (first paragraph).
Ariad Pharmaceuticals and its research partners (collectively, “Ariad”) brought suit against Eli Lilly (“Lilly”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,410,516 (“the ’516 patent”), covering methods to regulate the activity of protein called NF-kB that regulates gene activity. After a jury’s finding of infringement at trial, the case was appealed to a panel of the CAFC which found the claims at issue invalid for lack of written description in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 560 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Ariad petitioned for a rehearing by the CAFC en banc, which was granted to address the lingering controversy regarding the existence of an independent written description requirement in § 112, ¶1. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
