Nilssen: Sanctioned (Yet) Again
Posted on | February 8, 2010 | No Comments
2010-1139 Nilssen v Wal-Mart
ND/IL 04-cv-5363
Judge Robert Gettlemen
Plaintiffs Ole Nilssen & Geo Foundation appeal from the order of Judge Gettlemen finding the case exceptional and awarding attorneys fees.
Exceptional Case Based On Inequitable Conduct During Prosecution
Posted on | February 5, 2010 | No Comments
2010-1135 B-K Lighting v. Fresno Valves
CD/CA 06-cv-2825
Judge Margaret M. Morrow
Patentee B-K appeals from the order of Judge Margaret Morrow declaring the case exceptional under § 285 and awarding attorneys’ fees. The award was due to inequitable conduct before the PTO in failing to disclose certain prior art. The Court declined to base the decision on B-K’s alleged failure to disclose a co-inventor or on litigation misconduct.
CAFC: Law Firm Disqualified On Appeal
Posted on | February 3, 2010 | No Comments
2009-1171, -1558 Outside the Box v. Travel Caddy
The Federal Circuit has granted Outside the Box Innovations’ (aka Union Rich) Motion to Disqualify King & Spalding from representing Travel Caddy on appeal. Travel Caddy hired lawyers from King & Spalding to represent it on this appeal–however, another King & Spalding lawyer acted as an expert witness for Outside the Box at the trial court (on the issue of the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees). Outside the Box and Travel Caddy are adverse in the case.
Earlier Contract Case Now Bars Invalidity DJ
Posted on | February 2, 2010 | No Comments
2010-1134 Cummins v. TAS Distribution
CD/CA 09-cv-1096
Judge Joe Billy McDade
Cummins appeals from the summary judgment of Judge McDade finding its declaratory judgment action for patent invalidity, misuse, and contract termination barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion (f/k/a res judicata).
This is the third lawsuit between the parties since 2003, and all derive from a 1997 License Agreement from TAS to Cummins which included a license to TAS's 5,072,703 and 5,222,469 patents.
Target Can’t Be Sued Under § 292 For Selling Mis-Marked Product
Posted on | January 28, 2010 | No Comments
2010-1130 Inventorprise v. Target
SD/NY 09-cv-380
Judge Thomas McAvoy
Inventorprise appeals from the order of Judge Thomas McAvoy dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction its complaint against Target for false marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292.
Although it sounds to me more like an issue under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, the court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because there was no colorable § 292 claim alleged against Target.
Outsourcing Doesn’t Directly Infringe
Posted on | January 26, 2010 | No Comments
2010-1125 Phoenix Solutions v. DirecTV Group
CD/CA 08-cv-984
Judge Mariana Pfaelzer
Phoenix appeals from the order of Judge Pfaelzer granting summary judgment of non-infringement to DirecTV relating to a series of patents generally directed to speech processing technology and natural language interactive voice response systems. The accused systems include a website and telephone support lines that allegedly utilize the claimed technology.
Baker Hughes Gets PI Against Nalco…Again
Posted on | January 24, 2010 | No Comments
2010-1124 Baker Hughes v. Nalco
SD/TX H-09-1885
Judge Kenneth Hoyt
Nalco appeals from the grant of a preliminary injunction by Judge Kenneth Hoyt against it from infringing 7,497,943, generally directed to a method of removing or transferring metals and/or amines from crude oil. This is the second PI granted in the case: the first was vacated by the Federal Circuit in September because the first order was not sufficiently supported, particularly on the issue of irreparable harm.
Proposal Establishes On Sale Bar
Posted on | January 21, 2010 | No Comments
2010-1121 Honeywell v Nikon
D/DE 04-cv-1337
Judge Joseph Farnan
Patentee Honeywell appeals from the order of Judge Farnan finding that claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,280,371 is invalid under the on-sale bar provisions of § 102(b). The '371 patent s directed generally to a directional diffuser for a flat panel LCD of the type used, for example, in aircraft cockpit displays.
Prosthetic Sock Claims Invalid In Light Of Prosthetic Socks
Posted on | January 18, 2010 | No Comments
2010-1119 Ohio Willow v. Thermo-Ply
ED/TX 07-cv-274
Judge Ron Clark
Patentee American Willow appeals from the summary judgment order of Judge Ron Clark finding the asserted claims of 7,291,182 invalid under §§ 102 and 103. The '182 patent generally is directed at a coated fabric liner for prosthetics.
The case also involved an intervenor seeking to be added as an inventor (denied), and Thermo-Ply's motion to add Walker Process counterclaims based on fraud before the PTO (denied). The case was recently covered by Michael Smith over at EDTexweblog.
Juducial Estoppel Bars New Infringement Theory
Posted on | January 14, 2010 | No Comments
2010-1118 Altair v. LEDdynamics
ED/MI 07-cv-13150
Judge George Caram Steeh
Plaintiff Altair appeals from the grant of summary judgment by Judge Steeh finding that LEDdynamics LED fluorescent tube replacement bulb did not infringe certain asserted claims of 7,049,761. While the result appears fairly easy based on the court's claim construction, Altair developed a new infringement theory during summary judgment briefing that the court refused to consider under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
« go back — keep looking »Subscribe via RSS or Email
Introducing PATalert from PATracer
PATalerts: Recent CAFC Opinions 
- Schoenrogge v. Dept. of Justice
2010/7/14 : Docket 10-3100 : Non-precedential : MSPB - Rutherford Controls Int'l Corp. v. Vanguard Security Engineering Corp., Ltd.
2010/7/14 : Docket 10-1113 : Non-precedential : DCT - Barela v. Merit Systems Protection Board
2010/7/13 : Docket 10-3048 : Non-precedential : MSPB - Phang v. U.S.
2010/7/13 : Docket 09-5118 : Non-precedential : CFC - Outdoor Kids, Inc. v. Parris Manufacutring Co., Inc.
2010/7/9 : Docket 09-1405 : Non-precedential : PTO - Robacker v. Dept. of Agriculture
2010/7/9 : Docket 09-3289 : Non-precedential : MSPB - Subbaraya v. Merit Systems Protection Board
2010/7/9 : Docket 10-3087 : Non-precedential : MSPB - Jumah v. U.S.
2010/7/9 : Docket 10-5076 : Non-precedential : CFC - Atser Research Technologies, Inc. v. Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc.
2010/7/8 : Docket 10-1088 : Non-precedential : DCT - Kennington v. Merit Systems Protection Board
2010/7/8 : Docket 10-3045 : Non-precedential : MSPB
