FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Patent Law

Bilski v. Kappos

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S.S.C., Commercial Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.

Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Transamerica Life Ins., Co.

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a suit for patent infringement, related to computerized methods for administering variable annuity plans, district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment as a matter of law that it does not infringe the claims at issue of the '201 patent is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in denying defendants' motion for JMOL of noninfringement as the evidence on the record does not support jury's verdict of infringement; and 2) because defendant did not infringe, its argument that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant it leave to amend its complaint to assert a claim for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. section 101 need not be addressed.

Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elec. of Am., Inc.

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement suit by Encyclopedia Britannica against various defendants, involving patents relating to a multimedia database search system for retrieving textual and graphical information, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in declaring the patents invalid as anticipated by foreign patent application is affirmed as section 120 requires each application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications, and here, the patents in suit cannot claim priority as the '955 application failed to specifically reference the earlier filed '917 application and did not claim priority to the '917 application.

Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Corporation & Enterprise Law, Evidence, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement suit against defendant and its two employees, related to patents involving technology for automated duplication of compact discs, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of defendants' Rule 59(a) motion is reversed and remanded as the jury's verdict of the two employees' individual liability of direct infringement, despite the lack of instructions on defendant's existence or piercing its corporate veil, was plain error that requires a new trial; 2)jury verdict of individual liability for inducement is reversed as it involved a mistake of law; 3) district court's legal error in presenting the contributory infringement issue with respect to individual liability of the two employees to the jury requires a new trial; 4) because the verdict was clearly not supported by the evidence and was based on only speculation or guesswork, district court's denial of defendants' Rule 59(a) motion is reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages; and 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion for leave to amend.

Mee Indus. v. Dow Chem. Co.

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Evidence, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Patent, Remedies) In a malicious prosecution suit based on an underlying, allegedly meritless patent infringement action, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusions that Dow filed the patent infringement suit without the requisite probable cause and did not rely in good faith on the advice of counsel; 2) the evidence was not sufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard required for an award of punitive damages; and 3) the district court did not err in excluding plaintiff's loss of goodwill theory of damages.

Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp.

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, Government Law, Intellectual Property, Patent, Sanctions) In a patent infringement suit, related to patents for disclosing a magnetic snap fastener commonly used in women's handbags, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court was correct in holding the '773 patent unenforceable as the plaintiff and its president attempted to defraud the PTO; 2) district court did not err in finding that this case was an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. section 285 justifying an award of attorney's fees; and 3) the district court abused its discretion by sanctioning plaintiff's attorney under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 as the court failed to find that the attorney acted in bad faith.

Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., False Advertising, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Patent) In a licensed patent attorney's qui tam action under 35 U.S.C. section 292 alleging that defendant had falsely marked its products with expired patent numbers for the purpose of deceiving the public, district court's judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) summary judgment of no liability in favor of defendant was proper as false marking, combined with knowledge of the falsity, merely creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to deceive the public, and here, defendant provided credible evidence that its purpose was not to deceive the public with either the expired patent markings or the "may be covered" language, and plaintiff raised no genuine issue of material fact showing otherwise; and 2) district court's determination on the meaning of the word "offense," in holding that defendant could have committed at most three offenses is vacated as Forest Group, 590 F.3d 1295 holds that every false marked product constitutes an "offense" under section 292.

TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

Wed, 9 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement suit, summary judgment for defendant of invalidity of the asserted claims of a patent relating to an implantable device used to set bone fractures is reversed where: 1) the district court improperly resolved genuine issues of material fact in favor of defendant; and 2) reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice as the district court has now been reversed twice after entering summary judgment against plaintiff, in both instances simply signing defendant's proposed statement of law and facts relevant to the decided issues, a disfavored practice in the Ninth Circuit.

Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.

Fri, 4 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Contracts, Intellectual Property, Patent) In an infringement action concerning a patent related to a graphics system and process that mainly operates on a floating point format, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) because the district court erroneously construed two of the three contested limitations, summary judgment on claims with those terms is vacated; 2) district court erred with respect to the effect of the Microsoft license on direct infringement; and 3) district court's judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

Wed, 2 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In plaintiff's suit for infringement of a patent, which claims a compact blood centrifuge device for separating and collecting components in a liquid such as blood, judgment of the district court is reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's claim construction is reversed as "centrifugal unit" in claim 16 consistently means a vessel and a plurality of tubes, irrespective of its meaning in claim 1; and 2) district court's holding that claim 16 is not indefinite as a matter of law and the jury's finding that the patent was not invalid due to anticipation or obviousness is vacated because the district court erred in its construction of "centrifugal unit" and because the jury's verdict relied on the district court's incorrect claim construction.

Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd.

Fri, 28 May 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement suit, directed to methods for using a Web server to send individualized content and formatting instructions in the form of Web pages, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity of the '737 patent is affirmed on grounds of obviousness under the prior art in view of general knowledge in the field; and 2) district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss Dow Jones' invalidity claim against one patent is reversed as a covenant not to sue proffered by defendant extinguishes the controversy between the parties and divests the district court of its Article III jurisdiction.

Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc.

Fri, 28 May 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent, Remedies) In a patent infringement suit, district court's award of attorney fees and costs to plaintiff based on inequitable conduct and vexatious litigation is vacated and remanded where: 1) genuine issues of material fact exist that preclude summary judgment for inequitable conduct; and 2) the district court clearly erred by finding that defendant engaged in vexatious litigation by raising frivolous work-product objections.

Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun

Thu, 27 May 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Consumer Products, Intellectual Property, Patent, Remedies, Sanctions) In a patent infringement suit involving Fujifilm's patents directed to single-use cameras, or lens fitted film packages (LFFP), arising from defendant's conduct of purchasing used LFFPs and selling them as new after refurbishing them, judgment of the district court is affirmed including denial of defendants' post trial motion for JMOL based on noninfringement of a particular brand of LFFPs and inapplicability of a first sale's location, plus a ruling holding defendants in contempt of a preliminary order enjoining importation of infringing LFFPs.

Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Wed, 26 May 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, International Trade, Patent) The final determination of the International Trade Commission that the importation and sale of certain digital television products violated section 337 of the Tariff Act based on its finding that the accused products infringed a particular patent is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) Commission's construction of the term "channel map information" is affirmed; 2) the Commission correctly concluded that defendants failed to sustain their burden of proving that the asserted claims are invalid; and 3) the Commission's determination that the "work-around products" infringe is reversed as the Commission erred in its finding that the claims do not require that the channel map information be capable of being used.

Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc.

Mon, 24 May 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Attorney's Fees, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving patents related to eyeglass frames with magnetically attachable auxiliary lenses such as sunshades, summary judgment finding that plaintiff is equitably estopped from pursuing its infringement claim against defendant is affirmed where the elements of equitable estoppel were established without material factual dispute, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the equities. On cross-appeal, the district court's refusal to award fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. section 285 is also affirmed.