Archive for the 'Patent Law' Category

Taltech Ltd. v. Esquel Enter. Ltd.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Attorney’s Fees, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In plaintiff’s suit against its competitor seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a patent, which is drawn to seams including thermal adhesive to reduce pucker in garments, supplemental judgment of the district court reinstating its previous judgment, awarding attorney fees and costs under 35 [...]

Photocure ASA v. Kappos

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Drugs & Biotech, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) District court’s holding that the PTO’s denial of petitioner’s request for a term extension of a drug product having as its active ingredient the chemical compound, MAL hydrochloride, was not in accordance with law and that the patent on MAL hydrochloride is [...]

Patent Rights Prot. Group, LLC v. Video Gaming Tech., Inc.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Gaming Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In plaintiff’s patent infringement suit, relating to various types of casino-style gaming machines, district court’s entry of judgment in favor of the defendants is vacated and remanded where: 1) district court erred in declining to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants solely on the basis of [...]

Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Lupin Pharm., Inc.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) District court’s judgment sustaining the extension of the term of a patent, directed to an enantiomer of a racemic compound that had previously been approved by the FDA, and an order enjoining defendant from infringement during the extended term of the patent are affirmed where: 1) the district court [...]

Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Tech., Corp.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Aerospace & Defense, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent interference proceeding, relating to swept fan blades used on turbofan jet engines, district court’s reversal of the Board’s judgment against Rolls-Royce is affirmed as the claims of Rolls-Royce’s ’077 patent are patentable over defendant’s ’931 application because the ’931 application does not render [...]

Optimum Corp. v. Emcore Corp.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Communications Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement suit related to methods for improvements in an optical communication system, grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding that defendant did not commit inequitable conduct in obtaining the patents in suit is affirmed as the district court correctly ruled that, on plaintiff’s [...]

Robertson v. Timmermans

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In an interference proceeding before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences relating to patents for light-emitting diode replacement tubes for fluorescent light tubes, the Board’s denial of plaintiff’s preliminary motions claiming that defendant’s copied claims were unpatentable for lack of written description support as required by 35 U.S.C. [...]

Bradford Co. v. Con Teyor N. Am., Inc.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement suit, involving patents related to shipping containers used to ship automobile door panels and related parts, district court’s judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court’s decision limiting the priority date of a patent to its own [...]

In re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation

(U.S. 2d Cir., Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In an action claiming that defendant pharmaceutical companies violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act when they settled their dispute concerning the validity of Bayer’s Cipro patent by agreeing to a reverse exclusionary payment settlement, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where [...]

Avid Identification Sys., Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In plaintiff’s suit alleging infringement of a patent directed to a multi-mode radio-frequency identification system for reading encoded biocompatible chips, district court’s judgment that the patent was valid and infringed, but unenforceable for inequitable conduct, is affirmed where: 1) there remains a live controversy between the parties on the [...]