Posts from ‘United States: Patents’
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 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron, L.L.C., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of the case for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. Acceleron, a patent holding company, had contacted Hewlett-Packard to call attention to U.S. Patent No. 6,948,021 (“the ’021 patent”). After receiving two letters from Acceleron, HP filed for declaratory judgment. The district court granted Acceleron’s motion to dismiss for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The CAFC reversed, noting that while a party’s identification of a patent it owns and the plaintiff’s product line is not enough by itself to give rise to declaratory judgment jurisdiction, under the totality of the circumstances, including Acceleron’s position as a patent holding company, it was not unreasonable for HP to interpret Acceleron’s letters as an implicit assertion of its rights in the ’021 patent. Continue Reading
In Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed and remanded a finding of noninfringement by the District Court for the Central District of California, citing an incorrect claim construction. The CAFC also reversed a holding of indefiniteness by the District Court finding the lower court applied the incorrect standard. Continue Reading
In Ex Parte Rodriguez, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”) reversed the patent Examiner’s rejection of U.S. Patent Ser. No. 132492 entitled “Automated random verification of complex and structurally-variable systems.” However, using its authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), the BPAI entered new grounds for the rejection, specifically a lack of definiteness for failing to provide a structure for performing the functions in the broad claims. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
