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. (more...)
Archive for the ‘United States: Patents’ Category
CAFC holds forwarding GPS signals satisfies transmission/communication elements of processing method patent; GPS receiver satisfies machine component of Bilski method test
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. (more...)
Posted in United States: Patents 
Tags: Assignment, Bilski, patentable subject matter, standing 
No Comments »CAFC Holds Multi-Input Video Game Controller Unsupported by Single Input Specification of Parent Application, Invalidating Priority
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. (more...)
En banc CAFC Affirms Independence of S112 Written Description Requirement
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. (more...)
CAFC Reiterates Supremacy of Judicial Precedent Over PTO’s Rule Making Authority In Interference Proceedings
In Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Company, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") reversed and remanded the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington's ("District Court") order dismissing Koninklijke Philips Electronic's ("Philips") complaint with prejudice.
The District Court affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' (the "Board") decisions, finding its "reasons for denying or dismissing each motion were grounded in the application of the Board's own procedures and regulations." On appeal, the CAFC reversed and remanded the District Court's decision. The CAFC held that the District Court improperly dismissed Philips' complaint sua sponte, thereby entering a de facto summary judgment; wrongly dismissed Philips' claim that the Board erroneously applied 37 C.F.R. §41.200(b); and improperly dismissed Philips' claim that the Board erred in denying its contingent motion to find several of the competing applicant's claims anticipated or obvious. (more...)
CAFC Reverses Damages Based On Reasonable Royalty Rates Extrapolated From Licensing Agreements Not Tied To Claimed Invention
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. (more...)
|