In Brief: Qualcomm v. Broadcom

2008-1199, 2008-1271, 2008-1272 Qualcomm v. Broadcom CD/CA 05-CV-467 Judge James V. Selna The appeal briefs are in from the other, other Qualcomm v. Broadcom case in which certain of Qualcomm’s (3G) WCDMA and EV-DO cellular chips and its QChat software were found to infringe and were permanently enjoined.  Qualcomm’s brief can be downloaded here, Broadcom’s [...]

In Brief: Novo Nordisk v. Sanofi-Aventis

2008-1225 Novo Nordisk v. Sanofi-AventisD/NJ 07-CV-3206Judge Mary L. Cooper Briefing is done in Novo’s appeal of the district court’s denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction.  Oral argument is scheduled for Thursday, 10 July 2008, courtroom 201. Novo accused Sanofi’s SoloStar® disposable insulin delivery "pen" of infringing 7,241,278, which is generally directed to an [...]

In Brief: Qualcomm v. Broadcom

2007-1545, 2008-1162 Qualcomm v. BroadcomSD/CA 05-CV-1958Judge Rudi Brewster Qualcomm sued Broadcom for infringing 5,576,767 and 5,452,104 related to products compliant with the H.264 video compression standard, the result of a standard setting organization ("SSO"), the Joint Video Team (“JVT”).  Broadcom claimed that Qualcomm had waived its rights to enforce the patents by participating in the [...]

In Brief: 2008-1157 Duratech Ind. v. Bridgeview Mfg.

2008-1157 Duratech Ind. v. Bridgeview Mfg. ND 3:05-cv-90 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.  Declaratory judgment defendant/patentee Bridgeview stipulated that the accused products did not infringe that construction and filed this [...]

In Brief: 2008-1155 MIT v. Microsoft

2008-1155 MIT v. Microsoft ED/TX  5:01cv00344 Plaintiffs stipulated to non-infringement by Microsoft after Judge David Folsom construed the term "aesthetic correction circuitry" to be limited to hardware rather than hardware and software. Summary of Argument from the brief of plaintiff/appellant MIT.  Howrey LLP, Irvine, CA (William Rooklidge; Russell Hill; Andrew Dallman; Alyson Barker). The district [...]

In Brief: 2008-1140 ExcelStor Tech. v. Papst Licensing

Our regular readers know that we provide notice and case summaries of newly filed patent litigation appeals.  PATracer, however, is aimed at following these cases through the CAFC from filing to opinion.  So, as part of our mission, a new feature will be a follow-up post providing the parties’ respective "Summary of the Arguments" from [...]