Court Zaps The Cardinal’s PCR HIV Patents

2008-1509, 1510 Leland Stanford Junior University v. RocheND/CA 05-04158Judge Marilyn Hall Patel Stanford appeals from the summary judgment opinion of Judge Marilyn Hall Patel finding that its 5,968,730; 6,503,705 and 7,129,041 patents invalid as obvious under § 103.  The patents involve correlating measurements of HIV nucleic acids obtained via a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay [...]

Court Clicks Off Another Claim From Finisar’s Patent

2008-1506 Comcast v. FinisarND/CA 06-04206 Judge William Alsup Patentee and DJ defendant Finisar appeals from Judge William Alsup’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity to Comcast.  Specifically, the court found that claim 25 of 5,404,505 was obvious. The Federal Circuit recently found claim 16 of the ’505 patent invalid as anticipated by a 1983 textbook [...]

When It Comes To Nitrogen, It’s All About Location, Location, Location

2008-1404 Procter & Gamble v. Teva Pharma D/DE 04-CV-940 <!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –> <!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –> Teva has appealed Judge Farnan’s final judgment finding P&G’s patent for risedronate sodium valid and infringed.  [...]

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 [...]

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.  [...]

Blackboard Loses Most Claims, Wins Millions And Injunction

2008-1368 Blackboard v. Desire2LearnED/TX 9:06CV155 Both parties appeal from the final judgment of Judge Ron Clark finding that claims 1-35 of Blackboard’s 6,988,138 patent are invalid (indefinite), but confirming the jury’s verdict that claims 36-38 are not invalid and infringed.  The jury also awarded Blackboard over $3 million in lost profits and royalties, and the [...]

ResQNet and Lasna Split Infringement Judgment

2008-1365, 1366 ResQNet.com v. Lasna, Inc.SD/NY 01-cv-3578 Both parties appeal part of Judge Robert Sweet’s judgment following a bench trial on ResQNet’s two remaining patents.  The parties split infringement findings, with ResQNet being awarded approximately $400k (net after a $100k sanction against it and counsel under Rule 11). ResQNet sued Lasna on 5 patents related [...]

Close Doesn’t Count: Catch-A-Call Doesn’t Infringe

2008-1338, 2008-1339 Kernius v. Int’l ElectronicsD/MD RDB 05-1927 Everyone appeals from Judge Richard Bennett’s summary judgment order finding non-infringement and from the jury’s subsequent verdict finding the 6,628,771 patent not invalid. Kernius alleged that defendants’ "Catch-A-Call" device infringed the ’771 patent, which is directed to a distinctive call waiting alert and management device and process.  [...]

Candle Tin Patent Torches Limited

2008-1333 Ball Aerosol v. Limited BrandsND/IL 05-c-3684 Defendants Limited (including Bath & Body Works) appeal from Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan’s orders granting summary judgment of infringement to plaintiff and, more recently, on damages and willfulness (in the amount of $2.8 million after enhancement).  Chicago IP Law covered the case here and here. Plaintiff Ball Areosol (BASC) [...]