2008-1168 Carter v. Alk Holdings

ND/GA 1:06-cv-2080   
Carter was an employee of defendants who, allegedly on his own time etc., invented a new locking mechanism for safe-deposit boxes.  After defendants initially passed on the idea, they approached plaintiff about a 50%-50% partnership.  Defendants hired a patent attorney to prosecute the application, but apparently defendant Hassebrock was improperly added as [...]

2008-1167 Lacks Indust v. McKechnie Vehicle

ED/MI 96-CV-75692
5,597,213 is directed to an automotive wheel and overlay assembly.  The Federal Circuit had previously affirmed a bench trial verdict that defendants infringed, but had remanded on the question of whether plaintiff’s pre-critical date activities constituted an “on sale” bar.  Judge John Feikens adopted Special Master Richard Grauer’s Report and Recommendation that plaintiff’s claims [...]

2008-1166 USA Video v. Time Warner

ED/TX 2:06-CV-239
5,130,792 is an early 1990’s video on demand patent that, among other things, requires that compressed programs be “transmitted in less time that in required to view the programs in real time.”  Defendants use the MPEG-2 standard and TSP to deliver the content to subscribers in packets of data.  Defendants’ system ultimately transmits both [...]

2008-1165 Advanced Analogic Tech V ITC

ITC 337-TA-564
In the Matter of Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same
Complaint filed by Linear Technology regarding 6,441,531 and 6,580,258 and voltage regulators for laptops, cell phones, etc., Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc. the named respondent.  ALJ Sidney Harris investigated and initially determined no infringement of the ‘258 patent; infringement of some claims of [...]

2008-1164 Respironics v. Invacare

WD/PA 04:cv-0336
Respironics sued for infringement of 4 patents related to sleep therapy devices for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.  In claim construction, Judge Gary Lancaster construed 3 of the patents to require the systems to operate at predetermined settings.  The court subsequently granted defendant summary judgment of non-infringement on 3 of the 4 patents, [...]

2008-1163 Murphey v. TPS Enterprises

D/AZ 04-CV-2430
Plaintiff and defendants entered into license for plaintiff’s patent and to commercialize plaintiff’s product, a snowcone vending machine.  Failing to bring anything to market, the arrangement was terminated.  Plaintiff sued (and lost) a state court case that defendants didn’t try hard enough, and then brought the instant action claiming infringement for defendant’s use during [...]

2008-1162 Qualcomm v. Broadcom

SD/CA 05-CV-1958
Qualcomm sued Broadcom on ‘104 and ‘767 patents.  Jury found that Broadcom did not infringe and, in advisory capacity, found the patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and waiver based on Qualcomm’s conduct before the Joint Video Team (JVT), a standard setting body that created the H.264 standard.  After the verdict, Qualcomm produced approximately [...]

2008-1160 Wavetronix v. EIS Electronic

UT 2:05-cv-73
Wavetronix owns 6,556,916 relating to using radar to gather and accumulate data for traffic planning and control.  The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement finding the defendant’s system more like the prior art than that of the ‘916.  Wavetronix appealed that decision, CAFC docket no. 2008-1129.  This is EIS’s cross-appeal of an earlier dismissal [...]

2008-1159 Vas-Cath v. Curators Univ Missouri

WD/MO 05-CV-0400
Case originates from BPAI Interference No. 103,988.  After receiving an adverse judgment from the BPAI, Vas-Cath sought review in the District Court’s under 35 U.S.C. § 146.  Vas-Cath subsequently amended and changed its relief to a declaratory judgment vis-à-vis the ‘988 interference and an injunction against defendants from interfering in Vas-Cath’s patent.  The case [...]

2008-1158 Kuhl Wheels v. General Motors

ED/MI 06-CV-15204
Kuhl owns 6,042,194 and 6,520,592.  Hayes Lemmertz had filed a declaratory judgment action that its Struktur Wheel didn’t infringe.  Counterclaims followed, and Kuhl attempted to add GM and Ford as infringers, arguing that the claims were virtually identical (apparently Ford and GM purchase wheels from Hayes).  That court denied the motion, so Kuhl filed [...]