All This Happened, More Or Less.

2009-1024 Responsible Me v. EvenfloSD/FL 06-61736 Judge Daniel Hurley Plaintiff Responsible Me appeals from the summary judgment decision of Judge Daniel Hurley finding that Evenflo did not infringe 7,134,714, generally directed to a detachable sub-tray for use with trays from car seats, highchairs, strollers and similar seats. Despite the post's title, not much happened in [...]

For Knee Supports, Slightly Curved Isn’t Generally Flat

2008-1554 Farrago v. Rawlings Sporting GoodsED/MO 4:06-cv958Judge Carol Jackson Farrago appeals from the summary judgment order of Judge Carol Jackson finding that Rawlings’ accused Knee Reliever does not infringe his 5,073,986 patent.  The court did grant Farrago summary judgment on Rawlings’ assertions of obviousness and invalidity. The accused product and patent are directed toward a [...]

Norgren Can’t Connect With Infringement Claim

Norgren Inc. v. ITCITC 337-TA-587 Norgren, Inc. has appealed the ITC’s ruling that SMC Corporation of Tokyo and SMC Corporation of America do not infringe its patent for connecting devices used in modular compressed air conditioning units.  Norgren filed its complaint in 2006, alleging infringement of its 5,372,392 patent.  The connecting device at issue–essentially a [...]

Tough Meets Classy….And Doesn’t Infringe

2008-1367 Felix v. American HondaD/KS 05-cv-2525 Plaintiff Mark Felix appeals from Judge Carlos Murguia’s orders granting Honda summary judgment of non-infringement.  Felix sued Honda on 6,155,625 alleging that the Honda Ridgeline’s In-Bed Trunk® system infringed claim 6.  Claim 6 states (key term highlighted by PATracer): 6. In combination with a vehicle including a vehicle bed, [...]

Crown’s Case Closed: Claims Can’t Cover Cans

2008-1340/2008-1284 Crown Pkg Tech. v. Rexam BeverageD/DE 05-cv-0608 Both parties appeal from parts of Mag. Judge Mary Pat Thynge’s orders finding Crown’s asserted patent claims invalid and not infringed by Rexam, and certain of Rexam’s asserted claims limited under § 287.  Delaware IP covered this case in several posts. The parties are competitors in the [...]

Vehicle Navigation Patent Miss Its Mark

08-1259 Vehicle IP v. General MotorsWD/WI 07-CV-345 IP management companies have not fared well in Chief Judge Barbara Crabb’s courtroom lately.  Similar to her recent decision in Netcraft, Chief Judge Crabb  granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Gem’s On Star and Horizon’s VIZ Navigator products. The dispute centered on Patent No. 6,535,743 and [...]

Jury & Judge Put the (Spinal) Screws to Medtronic

2008-1240 Depuy Spine v. Medtronic SofamorD/MA  01-CV-10165 Defendant Medtronic appeals from final judgment and Judge Edward Harrington’s denial of a bevy of motions including JMOL.  Depuy et al asserted 5,207,678 directed to pedicle screws and receiver members used in spinal surgeries.  In an earlier appeal to the CAFC, certain claim construction was determined, some of [...]

Card Shuffler Draw Beats Shuffle Master

2008-1239 Shuffle Master v. VendingdataD/NV 2:04-cv-01373 Plaintiff Shuffle Master appeals Judge Brian E. Sandoval’s order granting summary judgment of non-infringement to Vendingdata on the automatic card shuffling patent 6,655,684.  The key term for the analysis involved "forming at least one set of cards within the apparatus from at least one deck of playing cards." The [...]

Southern District of California Ruling Gets Under Venetec’s Skin

08-1181 Venetec Intl v. Medical DeviceSD/CA 06-CV-83 Plaintiff Venetec has appealed Judge Irma Gonzalez’s claim construction and grant of summary judgment (noninfringement) in favor of Medical Device.  Venetec asserts three patents for catheters, Patent Nos. 5,827,230, 6,290,676 and 6,786,892.  The action in this case centers on the Court’s claim construction, where the parties dispute the [...]

2008-1166 USA Video v. Time Warner

ED/TX 2:06-CV-239 5,130,792 is an early 1990’s video on demand patent that, among other things, requires that compressed programs be “transmitted in less time that in required to view the programs in real time.”  Defendants use the MPEG-2 standard and TSP to deliver the content to subscribers in packets of data.  Defendants’ system ultimately transmits [...]