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…)
Archive for the ‘United States’ Category
CAFC declines to give PTO Chevron deference interpreting statute in patent term extension dispute
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. (more…)
Posted in United States: Patents 
Tags: 154(b), Patent Term Adjustment, statutory interpretation 
No Comments »CAFC Vacates Obviousness Summary Judgement Of Automated Offer Solicitation System, Finding No Prior Art Allowed for Immediate Acceptance of Offers
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. (more…)
CAFC Rules Inherent Disclosure Must Disclose Elements As Arranged To Be Anticipatory Reference
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. (more…)
CAFC holds Cancellation Petitioner Has Initial Burden to Overcome Presumption of Registered Mark’s Acquired Distinctiveness Since Under 37 C.F.R. 2.122 Application File Is Part of Evidence Record
In The Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc. the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“TTAB”) decision (#92047391), which had cancelled the registration of the Cold War Museum’s service mark THE COLD WAR MUSEUM (Serial 76487216).
The TTAB had initially dealt with the issue of whether the registrant’s Cold War Museum’s service mark had acquired distinctiveness and was registrable pursuant to section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). However, the TTAB erred in cancelling the registration after it held registrant Cold War Museum had not proven the acquired distinctiveness of its mark. The CAFC, upon de novo review of the TTAB’s legal conclusions, reversed the decision. (more…)
CAFC Applies MedImmune Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Standard, Finds Implied Assertion of Patent by Non-Competitor Patent Holder
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. (more…)
|