Target Can’t Be Sued Under § 292 For Selling Mis-Marked Product

2010-1130 Inventorprise v. Target SD/NY 09-cv-380 Judge Thomas McAvoy Inventorprise appeals from the order of Judge Thomas McAvoy dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction its complaint against Target for false marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292.  Although it sounds to me more like an issue under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, the [...]

Outsourcing Doesn’t Directly Infringe

2010-1125 Phoenix Solutions v. DirecTV Group CD/CA 08-cv-984 Judge Mariana Pfaelzer Phoenix appeals from the order of Judge Pfaelzer granting summary judgment of non-infringement to DirecTV relating to a series of patents generally directed to speech processing technology and natural language interactive voice response systems.  The accused systems include a website and telephone support lines [...]

Baker Hughes Gets PI Against Nalco…Again

2010-1124 Baker Hughes v. NalcoSD/TX H-09-1885Judge Kenneth Hoyt Nalco appeals from the grant of a preliminary injunction by Judge Kenneth Hoyt against it from infringing 7,497,943, generally directed to a method of removing or transferring metals and/or amines from crude oil.  This is the second PI granted in the case: the first was vacated by [...]

Proposal Establishes On Sale Bar

2010-1121 Honeywell v Nikon D/DE 04-cv-1337 Judge Joseph Farnan Patentee Honeywell appeals from the order of Judge Farnan finding that claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,280,371 is invalid under the on-sale bar provisions of § 102(b).  The '371 patent s directed generally to a directional diffuser for a flat panel LCD of the type [...]

Prosthetic Sock Claims Invalid In Light Of Prosthetic Socks

2010-1119 Ohio Willow v. Thermo-Ply ED/TX 07-cv-274 Judge Ron Clark Patentee American Willow appeals from the summary judgment order of Judge Ron Clark finding the asserted claims of 7,291,182 invalid under §§ 102 and 103.  The '182 patent generally is directed at a coated fabric liner for prosthetics.  The case also involved an intervenor seeking [...]

Juducial Estoppel Bars New Infringement Theory

2010-1118 Altair v. LEDdynamics ED/MI 07-cv-13150 Judge George Caram Steeh Plaintiff Altair appeals from the grant of summary judgment by Judge Steeh finding that LEDdynamics LED fluorescent tube replacement bulb did not infringe certain asserted claims of 7,049,761.  While the result appears fairly easy based on the court's claim construction, Altair developed a new infringement [...]

iLOR Must Pay Google’s Legal Fees For Baseless Lawsuit

2010-1117 iLOR v Google ED/KY 07-cv-109 Judge Joseph Hood iLOR appeals from the finding of Judge Joseph Hood that its suit against Google was baseless and "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that it should pay over $650,000 for Google's legal fees, costs and expenses.

Whose Use Is It Anyway?

2010-1110, 1131 Centillion Data v Qwest SD/IN 04-cv-0073 Judge Larry McKinney Both sides appeal from the summary judgment order of Judge Larry McKinney finding that Centillon's patent 5,287,270 is not invalid but is also not infringed.  The '270 patent is directed to billing systems that may be utilized by a service customer to manipulate usage [...]

Suing In Texas Doesn’t Create Jurisdiction In California

2010-1107 Juniper Networks v. SSL Service ND/CA 08-cv-5758 Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Juniper appeals the dismissal of its declaratory judgment complaint by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong based on a lack of personal jurisdiction over SSL.

PATracer’s New Home

Although our old Typepad account was great, we thought WordPress was even better, so we have transitioned to our new home.  Some of the earlier posts have lost their attachments and some links/images may have disappeared or broke, so I apologize if something doesn’t work.