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 [...]

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 [...]

End Of The Line For Nursing Tank Top Patent?

2008-1375 Line Rothman v. TargetD/NJ 05-4829 Line Rothman appeals from the judgment and orders of Judge Garrett Brown, Jr. affirming the jury’s verdict that: defendants did not infringe claim 12 of 6,855,029; claims 1, 5 and 12 of the ’029 are invalid under anticipation and obviousness; Rothman and her patent attorney committed inequitable conduct in [...]

Let’s Get Ready To Rumble: Dickson Smacks Down PET

2008-1372 Dickson Industries v. Patent Enforcement Team LLCWE/OK 02-0467 Patentee Patent Enforcement Team (PET) appeals from the judgment of Judge Joe Heaton entering the jury’s verdict that claim 5 of 4,701,069 is invalid under §§ 102/103 and that PET tortuously interfered with Dickson’s business relations–awarding over $500k in actual and $1 million in punitive damages.  [...]

Silicon Graphics v. ATI Is A Draw

2008-1334 Silicon Graphics v. ATI TechnologiesWD/WI 06-c-0611 ATI appeals from the judgments of Judge Barbara Crabb on the verdicts that Silicon Graphic’s  6,650,327 patent valid and enforceable.  The court had previously granted summary judgment of non-infringement to ATI on most of the asserted patent claims, and Silicon Graphics had voluntarily dismissed the rest.  Phillip Brooks [...]

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 [...]

Inventor Faked Drawing For PTO: Patent Unenforceable

2008-1291 to 1298 Armament Systems v. IQ Hong KongED/WI 00-C-1257 (lead case) Plaintiff Armament Systems (ASP) appeals Judge William Griesbach’s orders finding its patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct and then awarding attorneys’ fees under § 285.  ASP’s patent, 6,190,018, is directed to a miniature LED flashlight.  The patent issued in February 2001, and plaintiff quickly [...]

Faked Test and Inoperable Process Dooms Patent

2008-1203 Use Techno v. Kenko USAND/CA 06-CV-02754 Plaintiff Use Techno appeals the grant of summary judgments in favor of defendants. Use Techno et al. are in the business of, and have patents related to, extracting corosolic acid from Banaba plants for use in lower human blood sugar levels.  They sued defendants Kenko USA and others [...]

2008-1165 Advanced Analogic Tech V ITC

ITC 337-TA-564 In the Matter of Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same Complaint filed by Linear Technology regarding 6,441,531 and 6,580,258 and voltage regulators for laptops, cell phones, etc., Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc. the named respondent.  ALJ Sidney Harris investigated and initially determined no infringement of the ‘258 patent; infringement of some [...]

2008-1160 Wavetronix v. EIS Electronic

UT 2:05-cv-73 Wavetronix owns 6,556,916 relating to using radar to gather and accumulate data for traffic planning and control.  The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement finding the defendant’s system more like the prior art than that of the ‘916.  Wavetronix appealed that decision, CAFC docket no. 2008-1129.  This is EIS’s cross-appeal of an earlier [...]