FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Patent Law

Iovate Health Sci., Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Commercial Law, Consumer Products, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving nutritional supplements containing a ketoacid and an amino acid to enhance muscle performance or recovery from fatigue, summary judgment holding certain of plaintiff's patent claims invalid as anticipated is affirmed as the Professional Protein advertisement constitutes an anticipatory printed publication under section 102(b) that invalidates the asserted claims of the patent as: 1) the ad discloses each and every claim limitation as a matter of law; and 2) a person of skill in the art, combining his or her knowledge of the art with the advertisement's suggestions, would have considered the advertisements to be enabled.

Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elec. N.V.

Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Commercial Law, Contracts, Intellectual Property, Patent) In plaintiff's case against defendants arising from a patent license agreement dispute, judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff's subsidiaries are not licensed under the parties' patent licensing Agreement; and 2) the unambiguous Agreement makes clear that the license grant includes subsidiaries of plaintiff and defendant that meet the Agreement's Subsidiary definition.

In re: DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:00:04 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Patent) In an action alleging that defendant drug manufacturers conspired to maintain a monopoly in the market for desmopressin acetate tablets, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs' antitrust claim could stand on the citizen petition theory without raising questions of patent law; 2) plaintiffs had standing to raise Walker Process claims for patents that were already unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; and 3) plaintiffs sufficiently pled scienter on the part of defendants.

Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys. Inc.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving claim methods for quantifying HIV in human blood samples, district court's judgment is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) district court correctly found that Roche's counterclaim for a judgment on its ownership claim was subject to California statutes of limitation; and 2) district court's judgment of invalidity is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss Stanford's action as the district court incorrectly declined to consider Roche's affirmative defense based on ownership and as a matter of law Roche possesses an ownership interest in the patents-in-suit that deprives Stanford of standing.

Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Banking Law, Civil Procedure, Government Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement case involving a method for detecting fraudulent bank checks, district court's dismissal of certain counts of plaintiff's suit is affirmed as the allegedly infringing activity was for the United States and with its authorization and consent and thus could only be pursued in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1498(a).

Janssen Pharm. N.V. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving a method for treating Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, district court's conclusion that the claims of the patent at issue were invalid is affirmed as the patent's description of using galantamine to treat the disease does not satisfy the enablement requirement because the patent application did not establish utility.

AstraZeneca Pharm. LP v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving claims for the antipsychotic drug quetiapine, district court's grant of limited motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct in favor of plaintiffs-AstraZeneca is affirmed as defendants had not presented evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that in the prosecution of the patent application, plaintiff made a misrepresentation of material fact or an omission of material fact, with intent to deceive or mislead the patent examiner into granting the patent.

Kara Tech., Inc. v. Stamps.com, Inc.

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Contracts, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement and breach of nondisclosure agreement (NDA), involving patents directed toward apparatuses and methods of creating and verifying authenticity of documents such as postage, district court's judgment is vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) the judgment of noninfringement is vacated as the district court erred in construing the claims; and 2) district court's grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim is reversed as there are material issues of fact in dispute regarding breach of the NDA due to misuse of the confidential information.

In re Lister

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Patent, Sports Law) Decision of the PTO affirming the examiner's rejection of petitioner's claims of his application involving a manuscript for playing golf is vacated and remanded as the record does not contain sufficient evidence that the prior art reference relied upon by the Board was publicly accessible more than one year prior to the date on which the petitioner filed his patent application.

Edwards LifeSci. LLC v. Cook Inc.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Health Law, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Patent) In a patent infringement case involving intraluminal grafts for treating aneurysms and occlusive diseases, district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement is affirmed as the court correctly held that no reasonable jury could find literal infringement and that no reasonable jury could find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

Asymmetrx, Inc. v. Biocare Med., LLC

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Contracts, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a dispute over the rights of a patented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting malignant carcinoma, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is vacated and remanded as plaintiff lacks the statutory right to bring an action for infringement without joining the patent owner, Harvard. Although the license effected a broad conveyance of rights to plaintiff, Harvard retained substantial interests under the patents.

Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc.

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Consumer Products, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Patent, Trademark) In a patent and trademark infringement case involving a method of preventing formation of an air pocket around the blades of a consumer blender, summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated and remanded in part, and affirmed in part where: 1) district court's judgment of no direct infringement is vacated and remanded with instruction to apply the correct claim construction; 2) findings of no invalidity for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement is vacated and remanded with instructions to apply the correct claim construction; 3) district court's judgments of no inducement, no contributory infringement, and no trademark infringement is affirmed; and 4) district court's judgment of no inequitable conduct and no laches is affirmed.

Prometheus Lab., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Serv.

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Consumer Products, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement case involving methods for calibrating proper dosage of drugs used to treat gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal autoimmune diseases, summary judgment of invalidity is reversed as the court erred as a matter of law in finding the asserted claims to be drawn to non-statutory subject matter, as the claimed methods satisfy all of the requirements under In re Bilski's, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), transformation prong for patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101.

Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement case involving patents relating to the production of the protein erythropoietin using recombinant DNA technology, district court's judgment is vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment and of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to plaintiff-Amgen of no invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting of certain claims of one patent is vacated and remanded for an obviousness-type double patenting analysis of these claims; and 2) district court's grant of JMOL to Roche of non-infringement of one claim of another patent is vacated and remanded for a new trial on infringement of that claim. District court's grant of injunction to Amgen is not disturbed and the court's judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

Kucent Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Patent, Remedies) In Lucent Technologies (Lucent) patent infringement action against Microsoft, district court's judgment against Microsoft is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) district court's denial of Microsoft's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for non-infringement is affirmed as the evidence reasonably permitted the jury to have decided that Microsoft did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claims would have been obvious; 2) district court's denial of Microsoft's motion for JMOL that it did not induce infringement of the patent at issue is affirmed; 3) district court's denial of Microsoft's JMOL regarding the jury's $358 million damages award is vacated and remanded for a new trial on damages as it was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the clear weight of the evidence.