Claims Not Obvious Over Prior Art Aren’t Enabled By That Art

2008-1594 Janssen Pharma v. TevaIn re: '318 Patent Infringement LitigationD/DE 05-356Judge Sue Robinson Plaintiff Janssen appeals from the judgment of Judge Sue Robinson, after a bench trial, finding 4,663,318 invalid as not enabled under § 112 ¶ 1.  The patent relates to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease with galanthamine and is sold by Janssen as [...]

In Brief: Mathworks v. Comsol

2008-1283 Mathworks v. ComsolED/TX 06-cv-334Judge Leonard Davis A claim construction appeal by Mathworks related to 7,051,338 and the parties' respective MATLAB® and COMSOL Script® software programs.  Mathworks essentially stipulated to non-infringement the court construed the term "rank" and "ranking" to require placing the method signatures in an ordered manner relative to one another. Oral argument [...]

In Brief: Dippin’ Dots v. Mosey

2008-1337, 1125 Dippin' Dots v. MoseyND/TX 3:96-cv-1959Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. A case presumably on its last round as plaintiff appeals from the award under § 285 of attorney fees.  Dippin' Dots lost at trial, lost its trade dress appeal at the 11th Circuit, but partially won the appeal to the CAFC, getting a reversal on [...]

No Love For Nipple Cover Patent

2008-1590 Randi Black v. Ce Soir LingerieED/TX 2:06-cv-544Judge John Love Plaintiff Randi Black appeals from the summary judgment decision and order of Judge John Love finding her 7,152,606 patent invalid as obvious.  The patent essentially claims a pad covering at least 1/2 of a breast and tapered in thickness to a relatively thin outer edge [...]

Joint Action Of Website And Its Users Can’t Infringe

2008-1588 Global Patent Holdings v. Panther BRHCSD/FL 08-80013Judge Kenneth Marra Plaintiff Global appeals from the decision of Judge Kenneth Marra dismissing the case for failure to state a claim.  Global owns 5,253,341, which is directed to a remote query communication system–the asserted claim has some limitations that are performed by the web server, but others [...]

Timely Notice Not Required For Indemnification

2008-1582 Mass Engineered v. ErgotronED/TX 206 cv 272Judge Leonard Davis Third-party defendant Global Marketing Partners, Inc. appeals from the order and decision of Judge Leonard Davis holding that it must indemnify defendant CDW from the infringement claims asserted by Mass Engineered.  The appeal is interlocutory, and the underlying case is proceeding with EDTexweblog providing some [...]

Kimberly Clark IP Sub Not Subject To NY Jurisdiction

2008-1580 Arquest v. Kimberly-Clark WordwideSD/NY 07-cv-11202Judge Colleen McMahon Arquest appeals from the order of Judge Colleen McMahon finding that Kimberly-Clark Wordwide (KCWW) is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York, and dismissing Arquests’s DJ action.  KCWW is pursuing a later-filed infringement action again Arquest in the Northern District of Texas.  The case involves diapers [...]

Avocent Won’t Stay Quietly

2008-1564 Avocent Redmond v. Rose ElectronicsWD/WA 06-1711Judge Marsha Pechman Plaintiff Avocent Redmond appeals from the order of Judge Marsha Pechman denying its motion to stay or modify the protective order. Avocent sued Rose and others for infringing 5,884,096; 6,112,264; and 7,113,978, all related to a computerized switching system for coupling a workstation to a remotely [...]

Another Fishy Case

2008-1562 Fraser v. High Liner FoodsD/MA 06-11644Judge Rya Zobel Plaintiffs, the Fraser frères, appeal from the order of Judge Rya Zobel granting certain defendants summary judgment, denying other defendants summary judgment, and sanctioning the Frasers $500 per defendant for being annoying. This is another case with pre se plaintiffs letting their lack of legal acumen [...]

Strike 4: Lovenox® Patent Still Unenforceable

2008-1560 Aventis v. SandozCD/CA 06-4858Judge Mariana Pfaelzer Aventis appeals from the order of Judge Mariana Pfaelzer granting Sandoz’s motion for summary judgment finding 5,389,618 and RE38,743 unenforceable for inequitable conduct and dismissing Aventis’s infringement claims.  The patents are directed to a composition comprising low molecular weight heparins (“LMWHs”) marketed as Lovenox® in the United States [...]