2008-1157 Duratech Ind. v. Bridgeview Mfg.

ND 3:05-cv-90
Declaratory judgment action (with infringement counterclaims) relating to 6,375,104 and 6,109,553, farm machinery processors for disintegrating baled crop material.  Judge Rodney Webb construed the key limitation “a manipulator mounted inside the container for driving crop material into the disintegrator” as means-plus-function language and limited it to the structure disclosed.  Patentee stipulated that accused products [...]

2008-1156 Flashmark Tech v. GTech

ED/TX 2:06-CV-00205
Flashmark sued GTech on 5,109,153, related to articles with radiant energy responsive material and canceling such articles using radiant energy.  These articles could be checks, stock certificates, stamps, etc.  Judge Clark (based on patent, prosecution history and prior art) held that “radiant energy” was limited to energy from the electromagnetic spectrum and did not [...]

2008-1152 Advanced Software v. Federal Reserve

ED/MO 4:07-CV-185
Case involves several patents for detecting check fraud.  Judge Catherine Perry granted summary judgment (partial) to the Federal Reserve Bank defendants (and to defendant Fiserv to the extent it sold to the Federal Reserve) under 28 U.S.C. §1498, which gives the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement claims whenever the invention [...]

2008-1147 TGIP v AT&T

ED/TX   2:06-CV-105   
TGIP asserted two patents related to pre-paid calling cards.  After an hour of deliberating, the jury returned a verdict for TGIP on infringement and willfulness, with damages in excess of $156 million.  Judge Ronald Clark granted JMOL on non-infringement (and willfulness).  According to the JMOL opinion, essentially the patents have limitations dealing with [...]

2008-1150 Warner-Lambert v. Teva Pharm

D/NJ 99-cv-922

4,743,450 is
directed to pharmaceutical compositions containing an ACE inhibitor stabilized against
cyclization and oxidative discoloration, and a process for so stabilizing. Warner-Lambert sued based on Teva’s
ANDA filing and, the Court granted summary judgment of not invalid by reason of
non-enablement. The Federal
Circuit reversed due to a lack of express findings in the summary judgment and,
on remand, [...]