En Banc: 271(f) and Cardiac Pacemaker

2007-1296 Cardiac Pacemaker v. St JudeSD/IN 96-CV-1718Judge David F. Hamilton The Federal Circuit is hearing the case, en banc, directed to a single question: Does 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) apply to method claims, as well as product claims? The panel relied on Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 425 F.3d [...]

Philips Burns Another DVD Infringer: Officer Personally Liable

2008-1385 US Philips v. Int’l NorcentCD/CA 06-cv-01366 Defendant Jennifer Long appeals Judge Edward Rafeedie’s order denying her JMOL and the jury’s verdict finding her joint and severally liable for over $12 million.  Philips sued Long and Norcent for infringing 5,677,903 and 5,463,607 directed to certain optical read/write storage devices (i.e., DVD players).  These patents are [...]

Ariad’s Patent On NF-κB Inhibitors Valid and Infringed by Lilly

2008-1248 Ariad Pharm v. Eli LillyD/MA 02cv11280 Defendant Eli Lilly appeals form Judge Rya Zobel’s denial of its JMOL following a jury verdict that its Xigris and Evista products infringe 6,410,516.  The jury rejected all of Lilly’s invalidity and unenforceability arguments, and plaintiffs were awarded approximately $65 million plus future royalties.   The ’516 is generally [...]

Weed Control DJ Premature

2008-1232 Monsanto v. Syngenta CropED/MO 4:07-cv-543 Monsanto appeals from Judge Carol Jackson’s Order dismissing its declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.  Syngenta owns 6,586,367 directed to a weed-control process that combines a phospho-herbicide with another group of herbicides, including metolachlor.  Monsanto sells a phospho-herbicide  (ROUNDUP) and [...]

Holding Company Not Liable For Subsidiary’s Conduct

2008-1202 TIP Systems v. SBC OperationsSD/TX 06-CV-0253 Plaintiff TIP appeals summary judgment of non-infringement.  TIP owns two patents related to “inmates phones” for prisoners’ use in correction facilities.  TIP had separately sued others, but had summary judgment of non-infringement entered against it (on appeal as 2007-1279 and 1241).  Here, the court had previously dismissed AT&T [...]