Forgery And Litigation Misconduct Doom Patent, Trigger Sanctions

2010-1149 Applied Materials v. Multimetrixs
ND/CA 06-cv-7372
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel
Defendants appeal from the orders of Judge Patel finding their patent, 6,831,287 unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the PTO and then sanctioning them under § 285 and inherent powers.  The ‘287 patent relates to a dual sensor design for vapor deposition processing of silicon wafers.

Trading Tech Patents Put To The Test

2008-1392 Trading Tech Int'l v. eSpeedND/IL 04-cv-5312
Judge James
B. Moran

Trading Tech ("TT") brought several suits,
including this one against eSpeed and Ecco, alleging infringement of 6,766,304 and 6,772,132,
both similarly directed at software used in electronic trading in the futures
market.  Events below were well covered, as usual, by David Donoghue at
 Chicago IP
Litigation. 
TT is appealing the district court's rulings that
eSpeed's redesigned products, Dual Dynamic and eSpeedometer, [...]

Medtronic, Abbott, Both Have Something To Appeal

2009-1014, -1038 Advanced Cardiovascular v. MedtronicD/DE 98-80-SLRJudge Sue Robinson
Both sides appeal from the verdicts, orders and judgment from Judge Sue Robinson's court finding that Medtronic infringes the so-called Lau patents (including 6,432,133), there was no inequitable conduct in procuring the Lau patents, but also declining to enter a permanent injunction.  The case involved various expandable, [...]

In Brief: Takeda v. Teva

2008-1314 Takeda Pharma v. Teva PharmaD/DE 06-cv-33Judge Susan Robinson
An inequitable conduct case regarding the inventors' failure to disclose certain test results during prosecution of 4,628,098.  The district court found the patent enforceable.  The '098 patent covers lansoprazole, marketed by plaintiffs as Prevacid® for gastric ulcers.  The case was previously covered here.
Oral argument is [...]

To Hell In A Handbag: Patent Unenforceable, Plaintiff And Counsel Hit With Fees

2008-1539 Advanced Magnetic v. Romag FastenersSD/NY 98-cv-7766Judge Paul Crotty
Plaintiff AMC appeals from the order of Judge Paul Crotty finding the case exceptional under § 285 and awarding attorney’s fees, and ruling AMC’s 5,572,773 patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  The court also found litigation misconduct and AMC’s counsel jointly responsible for the attorney’s fees under [...]

Judge Hammers Abbott’s Patent

2008-1511-1514 Therasense v. Becton, DicksonND/CA 04-02123 and other consolidated actionsJudge William Alsup
Plaintiffs Therasense and Abbott appeal from the judgment of Judge William Alsup finding in favor of defendants that (i) claims 1-4 of 5,820,551 (co-owned by Abbott and Therasense) are invalid as obvious and (ii) the ‘551 is unenforceable by reason of inequitable conduct.
The ‘551 [...]

UniRAM Defends Patent, Gets $30.5 Million For Stolen Trade Secrets

2008-1494 UniRAM Technology v. Taiwan SemiconductorND/CA 04-cv-1268Judge Vaughn Walker
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) appeals from the orders and judgment of Judge Vaughn Walker affirming the jury’s $30+ million verdict that it stole trade secrets from UniRAM and that certain UniRAM patents are not unenforceable. 
The patent infringement claims by UniRAM were dismissed with prejudice earlier [...]

Hospira Wins Dismissal But Loses Time

2008-1499 Aventis Pharma v. Hospira CD/CA 07-CV-8137Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer
Aventis has appealed from Judge Pfaelzer’s Order granting Hospira’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing Aventis’s infringement claim with prejudice based on collateral estoppel. 

Aventis owns U.S. Patent No. 5,389,618 claiming enoxaparin sodium sold under the brand name LOVENOX®.  Enoxaparin sodium is
used for the [...]

AstraZeneca Defends SEROQUEL® From Teva

2008-1480 AstraZeneca v. TevaD/NJ 05-5333Judge Joel Pisano
Teva appeals from Judge Joel Pisano’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Astra on Teva’s claim of inequitable conduct in the prosecution of 4,879,288, which covers the antipsychotic drug quetiapine, marketed by Astra a SEROQUEL®.  Teva had filed an ANDA seeking to sell a generic, 25 mg version [...]

Updated In Brief: Qualcomm v. Broadcom

2007-1545, 2008-1162 Qualcomm v. BroadcomSD/CA 05-CV-1958Judge Rudi Brewster
This is the appeal from case relating to the H.264 video compression standard resulting from the Joint Video Team, aka the case in which Qualcomm and its counsel were sanctioned.  We previously posted the Summary of the Arguments here, but now can provide copies of Qualcomm’s opening and [...]