About Kyle

Kyle B. FlemingRenner Otto Boisselle & Sklar1621 Euclid Ave., 19th FloorCleveland, Ohio 44140+1.216.736.3114 (t)patentlit@gmail.com Kyle has over 15 years experience as a trial and appellate lawyer.  With a strong background in mathematics and science, Kyle’s practice has focused on complex and technology-oriented litigation, particularly cases involving patents, antitrust implications and other forms of intellectual property.  [...]

Bendable Tab Doesn’t Pivot, Monitors Don’t Infringe

2008-1326 Digital Spectrum v. Eastman Kodak2008-1327 Digital Spectrum v. Target2008-1328 Digital Spectrum v. WestinghouseCD/CA SACV 07-00729 (main) Plaintiff Digital Spectrum appeals from Judge James Selna’s Order granting defendants summary judgment of noninfringement on 6,826,863.  The ’863 is directed to a combination video monitor and detachable picture frame. First, the court construed the limitation "a pivotal [...]

Lighter Infringer Dodges Willfulness But Still Must Pay $800k

2008-1324/1325 Calico Brands v. Ameritek ImportsCD/CA cv-05-205 Both parties appeal from Judge Patrick Walsh’s Order granting in part, denying in part, defendant’s JMOL. The judge affirmed the jury award of nearly $800,000, but vacated the jury’s finding of willfulness and also denied plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages.   The case involved  trigger-type lighters. The court had [...]

Roman Shade Patents Have No Protectable Points of Novelty

2008-1320 Park B. Smith v. CHF Indus.SD/NY 06-cv-869 Plaintiff Smith appeals from Judge Lawrence McKenna’s grant of summary judgment finding defendant CHF’s roman shade products do not infringe D493,651 or D505,039. First the court held that the overall similarity of CHF’s roman shade was sufficiently close to the patented design to defeat summary judgment as [...]

MIA: Preliminary Injunctions Part II continued

We continue with our review of 2007 and 2008 CAFC decisions on preliminary injunctions in patent cases. ERICO Int’l v. Vutec Corp., 516 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2008) [Newman, Rader, Dyk].  The CAFC vacated the PI, finding that defendants had raised a sufficient § 103 argument.   The district court had written two opinions [...]

Pop-Up® Web Photos Cook TNI

2008-1319 Volk Enter. v. TNI Packaging ND/GA 1:06-cv-318 Defendant  TNI appeals from the Order of Judge Jack Camp holding it in contempt, fining it $200/day, and awarding over $30,000 in legal fees against it.  TNI was found to have violated the terms of a stipulated Consent Order that ended the case in 2006. Volk owns [...]

MIA: Preliminary Injunctions Part II

In Part I we suggested that preliminary injunctions are one of the issues ripe for clarification by the Federal Circuit.  In Part II we offer brief summaries of the different CAFC decisions since January 2007 analyzing preliminary injunctions in patent infringement cases.  Because of the length of these summaries, we will break this Part into [...]

KXD’s Conduct Leaves Them SOL

2008-1316 US Philips v. KXD TechnologyCD/CA 2:05-cv-08953 Defendant KXD appeals from judgment on Judge Edward Rafeedie’s Order Striking Defendants’ Answers and Entering Default.  The case involved DVD players and Philips’ patents 5,463,607 and 5,677,903, with the court entering judgment in excess of $91 million and entering a preliminary injunction against defendants’ assets.  According to the [...]

Exception Case is Not Certainteed

2008-1315 Knauf Fiber Glass v. CertainTeed Corp.SD/IN 1:02-cv-1215 Defendant CertainTeed appeals from Judge David Hamilton’s Order finding that it failed to prove that the case should be declared exception based on plaintiff/patentee Knauf’s (1) inequitable conduct before the PTO and (2) pursuing baseless litigation. Knauf sued Certainteed, asserting 6,270,865 relating to a fiberglass duct board [...]

Takeda’s PREVACID® Gets Split Decision Against Teva

2008-1314 Takeda Pharma v. Teva PharmaD/DE 06-cv-33 Teva appeals Judge Susan Robinson’s Order and Opinion finding Takeda’s patent, 4,628,098 not invalid and not enforceable: Teva had previously admitted that its ANDA for a generic form of PREVACID® infringed the ’098.   Also tried last year to the court was infringement and validity re: 5,045,321.  The Order [...]