Seb S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
Posted on | August 1, 2011 | Comments Off
2010/2/5 : Docket 09-1099 : DCT : Seb S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.
Posted on | August 1, 2011 | Comments Off
2010/2/5 : Docket 08-1365 : DCT : Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.Snyder v. Shinseki
Posted on | August 1, 2011 | Comments Off
2010/2/5 : Docket 09-7102 : CAVC : Snyder v. ShinsekiTotes-Isotoner Corp. v. U.S.
Posted on | August 1, 2011 | Comments Off
2010/2/5 : Docket 09-1113 : CIT : Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. U.S.Lee v. U.S. Postal Service
Posted on | August 1, 2011 | Comments Off
2010/2/5 : Docket 09-3270 : MSPB : Lee v. U.S. Postal ServiceNew Appeals, 2011-02-15
Posted on | February 24, 2011 | 16 Comments
Tuesday, February 15 was a light day for new infringement filings with only 2 new cases:
2011-1211 Joao Bock v Sleepy Hollow
SD/NY 03-cv-10199
Judge Warren Eginton
Plaintiff appeals from the jury verdict that the asserted claims of 6,529,725 were invalid (§ 102(a), (b) and (e) and § 103) and not infringed. The patent relates to an apparatus and method for providing secrure financial transaction, such as point-of-sale credit card authorization systems.
2011-1214 In re VTran Media Technologies LLC Patent Litigation
ED/PA MDL Docket No. 08-1948
Judge Baylson
Plaintiff appeals the grant by Judge Baylson of summary judgment of non-infringement of 4,890,320 and 4,995,078 related to video on demand services. There were approximately 16 cases filed and 19 defendants, including many large cable system operators.
The relevant judgments are below. Read more
Visicu Hopes To Resuscitate Its ICU Patents
Posted on | February 23, 2011 | No Comments
2011-1209/10 Cerner Corp. v. Visicu, Inc.
W.D. Mo. 04-1033-CV
Judge Gary Fenner
Cross-appeals from the jury verdict and Judge Fenner’s findings that Visicu’s patents are invalid and not infringed, but also that they are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution. The patents, 6,804,656 and 7,256,708, are generally directed to a system for monitoring patient vital signs from the ICU and sending remote pages or alerts to physicians or others. Cerner offers a virtual ICU system that was accused of infringing. Visicu is a competitor and is owned by Philips. Read more
Court Sinks Trebor’s Infringement Claims
Posted on | February 23, 2011 | 15 Comments
2011-1208 Trebor Indus. v. JL Gory, LLC
S.D. Fla. 09-60214-CIV
Judge William Dimitroulas
Plaintiff Trebor appeals from the grant of summary judgment for non-infringement in favor of defendants JL Gory d/b/a The Airline by J. Sink. Plaintiffs patents are directed to a quick release diving belt for scuba divers and the like.
Bayer Appeals Claim Construction
Posted on | February 21, 2011 | 7 Comments
2011-1207 Bayer Healthcare v. Centocor Ortho Biotech
D. Mass. 09-cv-113620
Judge F Dennis Saylor IV
Bayer appeals from a stipulated judgment of non-infringement following Judge Saylor’s claim construction of U.S. 5,654,407. Bayer alleged infringement of SIMPONI®(golimumab), an anti-TNF therapy for certain types of adult arthritis.
Whitserve Aces CPi for $8 Million
Posted on | February 18, 2011 | 1 Comment
2011-1206 Whitserve LLC v Computer Packages, Inc.
D/Ct 3:06-cv-1935
Judge Alfred Covello
Defendant Computer Packages, Inc. appeal from the judgment following a jury verdict finding willful infringement and rejecting CPi’s invalidity claims. CPi provides Patent and Trademark Intellectual Property Management Systems and Patent Annuity Payment Services–the jury found that certain of CPi’s desktop, hosted, and online products infringed 5,895,468; 6,049,801; 6,182,078 and 6,981,007 patents. The jury rejected all CPi’s invalidity arguments, found the infringement willful, and awarded over $8.3 million in damages.
Subscribe via RSS or Email
Introducing PATalert from PATracer
PATalerts: Recent CAFC Opinions 
- LEO MIKITAROFF v. SHINSEKI [RULE 36 JUDGMENT]
Appeal Number: 12-7137 - GREENVILLE COMMUNICATIONS v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP [RULE 36 JUDGMENT]
Appeal Number: 12-1676 - FRANK HENDERSON v. SHINSEKI [OPINION]
Appeal Number: 12-7028 - FORRESTER ENVIRONMENTAL v. WHEELABRATOR TECHNOLOGIES [OPINION]
Appeal Number: 12-1686 - NSK CORPORATION v. USITC [OPINION]
Appeal Number: 11-1362 - ALCATEL-LUCENT USA v. OVERSTOCK.COM [RULE 36 JUDGMENT]
Appeal Number: 12-1629 - EDUARDO HINOJOSA v. SHINSEKI [OPINION]
Appeal Number: 12-7176 - DANNY BREWER v. SHINSEKI [RULE 36 JUDGMENT]
Appeal Number: 12-7167 - LINDA KAFELE v. USPS [OPINION]
Appeal Number: 13-3041 - JAMES WHITE v. SHINSEKI [OPINION]
Appeal Number: 12-7174
