Missing Clinker Sinks Cement Patent

2008-1218 Ultimax Cement v. CTS CementCD/CA 02-cv-578 Plaintiff Ultimax appeals Judge Alicemarie Stotler’s orders that its 6,406,534 patent is not infringed and is invalid.  The ‘534 is directed to a high strength, fast setting cement.  Defendants thought the asserted claims of the ‘534 patent seemed a lot like the inventors earlier patents, and eventually moved [...]

Oxford Gene (Again?) Avoids California Jurisdiction

2008-1217 Autogenomics v. Oxford Gene TechCD/CA 07-cv-846 Autogenomics appeals Judge Mariana Pfaelzer’s order dismissing its declaratory judgment action for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Oxford Gene Tech is a British company that owns 6,057,270 related to analyzing polynucleotide sequences.  OGT sent a cease and desist to Autogenomics and, after licensing discussions collapsed, Autogenomics filed a declaratory [...]

Molten’s Defense Dribbles Off Foot, Loses $8 Million

2008-1216 Baden Sports v. Molten WD/WA 06-cv-210 Molten appeals from Judge Marsha Pechman’s denial of its motions for new trial and JMOL following a $8+ million jury verdict (and permanent injunction) against it for infringement (5,636,835) and false advertising.  Baden and Molten are competitors, and Molten’s advertised its cushioned ball as “innovative technology that is [...]

“Vulnerability” is Fatal to Another Preliminary Injunction

2008-1211 Printguard v. SivexD/MA 07-cv-40256 Printguard appeals the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction.  Printguard owns 6,811,863 and 7,270,873 generally directed to a foam-backed anti-marking covering used in high-speed offset printer.  Judge Dennis Saylor denied Printguard’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction; despite finding that the Sivex clearly practices the claims, the court found that it [...]

Inventor Unable to Undo Assignments and Settlements with Co-Inventors

2008-1208 and 1209 Larson v. Correct CraftMD/FL 6:05-cv-686 Borden Larson worked at defendant Correct Craft (“CCI”) for many years, during which time he designed a new wakeboard tower.  CCI was in that industry, liked the design, commercialized it, and obtained several patents on it.  Along the way it picked up two more inventors, Snook (also [...]

Stormwater Filtration Patents Not Invalid and Not Infringed

2008-1206 and 1207 Contech Stormwater v. Baysaver TechD/MD  07-cv-358 Plaintiff Contech and defendant Baysaver appeal and cross appeal Judge Catherine Blake’s grant of motion of summary judgment finding that (1) Baysaver does not infringe and (2) Contech’s patents are not invalid.  The patents relate to a stormwater filtration system.  One term construed by the court [...]

Judge Chesney Affirms Jury Verdict for Celerity

2008-1205 Celerity v. Ultra CleanND/CA 05-cv-4374 Defendant Ultra Clean appeals various orders relating to the jury verdict against it, claim construction, and denied JMOL.  Celerity brought suit on 7 patents against Ultra Clean concerning modular gas delivery technology used in semiconductor manufacturing and other related industries.  During the case 5 of the patents dropped away [...]

Professor Can’t Intervene To See Confidential Information

2008-1204 Baystate Tech v. BowersMA 91-cv-40079Professor George Kuney of the University of Tennessee College of Law appeals the district court’s summary denial of his motion to intervene and to modify a protective order.  In 1991 Baystate filed a declaratory judgment action against Bowers—both parties had software programs related to a third-party CAD program.  Bowers counterclaims [...]

Faked Test and Inoperable Process Dooms Patent

2008-1203 Use Techno v. Kenko USAND/CA 06-CV-02754 Plaintiff Use Techno appeals the grant of summary judgments in favor of defendants. Use Techno et al. are in the business of, and have patents related to, extracting corosolic acid from Banaba plants for use in lower human blood sugar levels.  They sued defendants Kenko USA and others [...]

Holding Company Not Liable For Subsidiary’s Conduct

2008-1202 TIP Systems v. SBC OperationsSD/TX 06-CV-0253 Plaintiff TIP appeals summary judgment of non-infringement.  TIP owns two patents related to “inmates phones” for prisoners’ use in correction facilities.  TIP had separately sued others, but had summary judgment of non-infringement entered against it (on appeal as 2007-1279 and 1241).  Here, the court had previously dismissed AT&T [...]